It's a Matter of Roots

By Tom Rhodes, 12/27/2012

There is a name for people who rely on the police and the justice system to keep them safe: Victims. Even Michael Moore recognizes this fact. In a recent blog entry I find myself agreeing with Moore on the facts, not his conclusions. The conclusion is simple but scary as a population reflects our roots.

Moore blogs: "These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon. I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true." ... more gun laws "won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th."

He continues saying, "In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did."

He even admits liberals won't address the core of the problem saying, "And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds - i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work."

"I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary - but ultimately, mostly cosmetic - changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns - mostly hunting guns - in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?"

Michael Moore goes on to rant that America is Racist and it is our Racism causing the problem. What he fails to note when comparing Canada and England and Japan to the USA is our demographics; blacks and latinos make up very miniscule percentages of their populations. It's not that the US is racist, government statistics show that murder between different raced people in the USA is statistically tiny, people almost always murder people of their own race. If you normalize for race and compare murder rates in the USA to other countries of similar races of the demographic that is murdered, the analysis is scary, but politically incorrect. This chart is of homicide rates in the USA by race and comparisons.



You can do your own research at the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

One fact that liberals and the main stream media won't examine is the fact that peoples roots better reflect homicide rates in the USA then just about any other predictor. People whose roots are from third world countries closer to the equator murder each other at far greater rates than people with northern European roots. Michael Moore hint's at looking at murder and racism in the USA, but he can't go where the data leads, even for him it's too politically incorrect. So he will blame whitey for wanting to have the means of self protection for the massive murder rate in the USA that is skewed by Black on Black and Latino on Latino murders.

Michael Moore is right in recognizing that race is an issue concerning murder in the USA. But the press won't look at the data in any meaningful way because the conclusions are unpalatable for their agenda. Just like Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's remarks about abortion law are trying to be scrubbed from history, the Press cannot expose racial differences if they aren't supportive of minorities.

Justice Ginsburg talking about Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women, because of a 1980 Supreme Court decision called Harris v. McRae. She said, "The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Her meaning was plain and clear, but liberals have been trying to clean up those remarks for years. If you look at the places Planned Parenthood puts their abortion clinics, it's clear they have targeted Blacks and minorities for population control using abortion.

Right now you are seeing a lot of comparisons between different states and homicide rates and the amount of guns in those states, what those comparisons ignore is the demographics of those states. If you look at US homicide rates by state and compare that to racial diversity the data is clear and shows that the more Blacks and Latino's in a state the higher the murder rate. Although not a perfect correlation, the relationship is quite clear. Compare race by state to Gun Violence by State.

We can ignore the data because it doesn't point in a direction we find emotionally or politically acceptable. Or you can accept the fact that with diversity you get not only the good things diverse cultures can bring but ALL of what a culture brings, including a cultures violent character. When melting cultures from equatorial third world nations into our own, we will add ALL aspects of those cultures, including their murder rates. If we as a nation are being diverse and accepting the poor tired masses of the world and giving them a chance at the American dream, then we must accept that increased percentages of our population with origins from more murderous and violent cultures will cause our culture to reflect that and be more murderous and violent. We cannot expect to have the same murder rates as Canada or England when we don't have a similar population demographics.

In England whites make up 90.1% of its population. Blacks make up only 3.4% of it's population, and Latino's are so few they are grouped with "other." In Canada whites make up 80% of its population. Blacks make up only 2.5% of its population, and a mere 1.0% are Latino. In the USA whites make up 72.4% of the population. Blacks comprise 12.6%, and Latinos 16.4%.

Michael Moore, hints around the edges at the problem, but don't expect any liberal to dig or report based on the facts, the facts destroy their narrative. Ask yourself, do the advantages of what diversity brings to the USA outweigh the negative effects that accompany that same diversity? I believe as a society we have decided that the benefits of a diverse population outweigh the costs, but that doesn't mean there are not costs, including our society having patterns of behavior that look more like the third world and less like the old world. It just goes to prove the old adage, blood is thinker than water. When normalized for demographic origins, our murder rate like many other measurable indicators reflects the populations of our roots.

Stop the Madness

By Rand Simberg, 6/18/2003

This biting satire was stolen from Transterrestrial Musings

In as much as the hoplophobes are beating the logical fallacy Reductio ad Absurdum to death with mountains of "what if" extreme unreasoned arguments concerning firearms in America, let's see what hapens when their reasoning is applied to our other rights. On FB, I posted "When a hoplophobe tells you the second amendment was about muskets not assault rifles, ask him if he posted that opinion with a bottle of ink and a quill. This satire expands that notion, and the statists view of our rights in general.

---

I often disagree with Bill O'Reilly, but I want to defend him.

A lot of smart people are bashing him on line,

particularly in the blogosphere, but I think that this just proves his point. I think that he's spot on with this erudite and well-reasoned editorial. This "Internet" is just too powerful.

When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they could never have conceived a technology that would allow anyone to publish anything at any time, at almost no cost, and have it readable by millions instantaneously.

In fact, inspired by this work, I'm working on a book, tentatively titled "Publishing America: Origins Of The Free-Speech Myth," in which my thesis is that very few people had access to printing presses in colonial times, and this notion of a long American tradition of a free press and individual freedom of expression is simply propaganda of First Amendment extremists. I've painstakingly gone over old probate inventories, and can show statistically that very few homes traditionally had means of printing and, such few as there were, they had mostly fallen into such a state of disrepair as to be useless.

Unfortunately, my pet iguana ate all of my notes, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm sure the print nuts will employ their usual ad hominem tactics, and call me a fraud.

Anyway, it's one thing to have free speech when the most effective means of communicating ideas is with a printing press that few can afford, and has to have the type carefully set by hand, and they have to be printed on expensive paper, and transported no faster than a horse can run, and distributed by walking door to door.

Such a laborious and expensive process as colonial-era printing ensured that potentially dangerous ideas were more thought out, and well edited, and could usually be easily traced to their author. So, given that the investment in publishing was so high, it made it much more likely that only responsible people would be publishing things, and that you wouldn't have wackos running around spewing crazy or confused, even false or misinformed notions at innocent and naive passers by.

In that environment, it made perfect sense to grant an individual right to print things (to bear presses, as it were), because there was little danger of it getting out of hand.

But surely the Founders never intended for every single citizen to be able to exercise such a right--in their wisdom, they would have known it would lead to chaos and unfettered thought. They couldn't possibly have imagined the rapid-fire distribution of dangerous ideas made possible by twenty-first-century technology. Why, some people might have even put forth the absurd notion that free speech is the right of everyone.

Had they actually anticipated the possibility that the cost of publishing could drop so dramatically, they would surely have made the First Amendment a much more explicitly collective right (like the Second), in which people would only have a right to free speech in a well-regulated state newspaper.

Let's be reasonable--of course it's fine to let people have typewriters, and copiers, as long as they don't have a paper magazine of more than a quarter-ream capacity, and can't print more than two pages per minute in high-density color. There are legitimate uses for such things--printing up book reports for school, making PTA meeting notices and party invitations, and the like. We respect the rights of those who wish to indulge in such innocuous, if pointless activities, long a part of the American cultural tradition (though it would certainly make sense to register such devices, in case they're stolen, or lest they're used to express some untoward or scandalous thought).

Of course, we do need to outlaw the cheap Sunday-night specials, old manual machines still available in pawn shops, with sticky keys, that cause ink stains, and from which a large number of late term papers are produced by the criminal procrastinating class during the witching hours. But really, folks, chill--no one wants to take away your typewriters.

But the Founders would realize also, just as Bill O'Reilly and I do today, that no one, other than the police and politicians, needs the kind of "idea assault" publishing capability offered by word processors, blogging software, and even fifteen-page-per-minute ink-jet printers, which really have no legitimate use--they only propagate calumny and wrong-headed notions, tragically damaging innocent celebrities' egos, sometimes permanently.

This past weekend, just to demonstrate how easy it is to lay hands on such dangerous equipment, I exploited the notorious "computer show loophole," and went out to the big show in Pomona, California. There, I saw entire halls filled with purveyors of high-speed idea processors, rapid-fire printers, and even modems capable of transmitting thoughts at frightening rates, up to gigabytes per second. For only $4.99, with not so much as an ID requirement, let alone a background check, I was able to purchase an "assault keyboard," with several internet hotkeys. It was fully automatic--holding down any key would result in a torrent of characters being spit out, hundreds per minute. I even saw teenaged children buying them.

Yet, when people propose sensible regulations over this, we hear hysterical cries about "freedom of expression," and "from my cold, dead fingers." But surely the far-fringe First Amendment absolutists are misreading it--there is a hint of a shadow of an umbra of a penumbra in there, easily accessed by referencing the Second Amendment. Bearing this in mind, it is more properly read with the following implicit preface: "A well-regulated press being necessary for the security of the State and self-important talk-show hosts, Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Clearly, viewed in the light of that implicit purpose clause, these were not intended to be individual rights, any more than they were in the Second Amendment, because obviously, the Founders wouldn't have meant one thing by the words "the right of the people" in the one case, and a different thing in the other, particularly in two adjacent amendments.

Accordingly it is equally clear that we need to implement what would obviously have been the Founders' intent had they foreseen the Internet, and immediately pass some laws to get this thing under control. Let's do it for the children.

Particularly Bill O'Reilly.

NBC Newsman Violates Law on TV

Washington DC Law states, “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. A ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” and carries a $1000 fine and/or 1 year in prison.

In the Washington Studios during “Meet the Press”, David Gregory held and was in possession of a 30 round AR magazine, in clear violation of the law. When are the DC police going to arrest David Gregory? Did some NBC producer give it to him at the studio and transfer it to Mr. Gregory? Obviously the law was broken at least once but probably many times? Why is there no outcry from the loony hoplophobes on the left for the arrest of Mr. Gregory? Or is the law only meant for the “little people.”

Diversity and a Culture of Violence

By Tom Rhodes, 2/21/2012

Piers Morgan of CNN is screaming and yelling and raving but not thinking, and definitely not looking at any data in his emotional but irrational gun rants this week. Comparing England's murder rate to the US's while ignoring the overall violent crime in England being far worse than the USA's is a start. England has 1/5 the population of the USA, so you would expect at least 5 times the number of violent crimes. England by comparison is not very a very diverse population. Canada the other country he used to compare to the USA is similarly a tiny homogenous population. The key component ignored is the USA's diversity, our population's origins and racial makeup. Normalizing for race and origins, the data looks a lot different.

In England whites make up 90.1% of its population. Blacks make up only 3.4% of it's population, and Latino's are so few they are grouped with "other."

In Canada whites make up 80% of its population. Blacks make up only 2.5% of its population, and a mere 1.0% are Latino."

In the USA whites make up 72.4% of the population. Blacks comprise 12.6%, and Latinos 16.4%.

Considering the fact that regardless of gun ownership countries with primarily black African and Latino populations have far greater rates of murder, specifically gun murders, the USA having a greater murder rate than England or Canada should be expected. Our crime and murder rates as a nation reflect an amalgamation of the cultures that make up our population. We have accepted and allowed massive numbers of people to bring their cultures into the USA, this melting doesn't result in them changing their culture, but our acceptance of "diversity" results in our culture becoming more like those we accept.

According to the FBI, there were about 3100 white murderers in the USA in 2011. If you exclude murders committed by blacks our murder rate is 1.3 per 100,000 people. Canada's is 1.6 and the United Kingdom's murder rate is 1.4. The numbers are clear, normalized for race and ethnic origin the murder rate is consistent for those of similar Heritage.

Chicago, has vastly more restrictive gun laws than the rest of the USA. Over 400 school age children where shot there this year. Almost as many as total children murdered in Chicago as all murders in England. But because the virtually all these innocent children are black, and the murders occurred in the city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, the press ignores it. The murder culture of third world immigrants is the problem, not the tool used to murder. Third world cultures that take justice into their own hands, and use murder to solve problems, rather than the courts and rule of law, and those cultural values brought to the USA contribute to our higher murder rate. Since 1965 our immigrants have not been European, but from third world, and our change in culture and violence reflect the influx of people from more violent cultures.

If you want homicide rates in the USA to be similar to England's or Canada's the solution is not acceptable to the Melting Pot of America. What it would take to morph our population to similar demographics as England's and Canada's is contrary to the very idea of America. How long a melting pot can remain a viable civilized country has yet to be determined, but since Babel, the history of man has not been kind to diverse mixed populations. The artificial acceptance of those who are not like us, is a unique unproven idea that runs contrary to history. It is difficult for people to trust others who are not like themselves. Hell, the British even classify Irish separately from other whites and the peace with Northern Ireland is tenuous at best. Because of human nature, America, and our election of Obama, may be as good as diversity ever gets, or can get. But comparing the USA's murder and any other attributes to far smaller more homogenous societies is at best an ignorant comparison, and at worst purposefully disingenuous. Some say our diversity accounts for our greatness, but that diversity is accompanied by a whole slew of problems and differences that cannot be ignored or discounted.

This paragraph, is so politically incorrect, even if you do the research yourself you won't believe it.
If you look at US homicide rates by state and compare that to racial diversity the numbers are scary. Although not a perfect correlation, the relationship is quite clear. Less white population as a percent of population and the greater the murder rate. More white population and less murders. Compare race by state to Gun Violence by State.

If you accept diversity as a desirable goal and outcome, then you must accept the fact that diverse populations will bring merge the evil parts of their culture not just the good. Are we better off as a nation being diverse and accepting the poor tired masses of the world and giving them a chance at the American dream? If so we must accept that increased percentages of our population with origins from more murderous violent cultures will cause our culture to become more murderous and violent. Do the advantages of that diversity outweigh the negative effects that accompany such diversity? I believe as a society we have decided that the benefits of a diverse population outweigh the costs, but that doesn't mean there are not costs, including our society looking a bit more like the societies our immigrant's origins and less like England.

Logic and Reason are not PC

You cannot use logic and reason discussion guns in America, the conclusions, evidence, and truth, so encite rage and emotional turmoil in liberals that they cannot speak or think rationally when exposed to objective facts that are so contra to their internal paradymes the litterally blow a gasket. (check out CNN's Morgan's irrational hatefull outbursts over this past week)

The below articeby Voxday, is not politically correct, it uses logic, reason, and data to explain why violence is higher in the US than other industrial countries. The conclusions will make liberals scream, and call those who actually recognize imperical evidence all kinds of names, because the truth will expose them as irrational and over emotional not reasonable.

Not mentioned in this article is the fact that if you exclude black on black murders, the US murder rate is about the same as Canada's.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a greater part of our population that has third world mentality for solving it's problems rather. But You can't say that in public regardless of the evidence and objective truth.

Why US gun deaths are high
By VoxDay
Friday, December 21, 2012

One of the questions often asked by those supporting gun control and those who are merely uninformed alike is why the US has so many gun deaths, especially in comparison with other Western, industrialized countries.

The first reason is obvious. There are nearly five times more people in the United States than there are in the largest European countries. This may seem ludicrously obvious, but most people really are that stupid and don't take population sizes into account. The fact that the news media covers all the crimes across the country it deems noteworthy means that the 310 million people in the USA are going to produce about five times more big crime stories than the 63 million in the UK.

The second reason is also related to demographics. The specific question that was asked was why the USA has a higher rate of gun homicides, 2.97 per 100,000 population than Canada, at only 0.51 per 100,000. After all, the USA and Canada are very similar countries, are they not? No, they are not. Only 3.5 percent of the Canadian population is African and Latin American. 28.9 percent of the US population is African and Latin American. Does this make a difference? The chart below demonstrates that this demographic difference is not only significant, but conclusive.

As per The Guardian article of July 12, 2012, the USA had 9,146 gun homicides, the fourth-most of the reporting countries. That was considerably more than Canada or any of the European nations; Canada had only 173. Even if one accounts for the much smaller Canadian population, it is obvious that Canadians were much less likely to shoot and kill other Canadians. Was this because there are fewer guns in Canada, only 30.8 percent compared to the 88.8 percent in the United States? No, it was because there are fewer African-Canadians and Latin-Canadians, as should be obvious from looking at the chart.



There were even fewer guns per capita in the two Latin countries, 11.5 percent, and in the two African countries, 8.3 percent, than Canada's 30.8 percent, France's 31.2 percent, or Germany's 30.3 percent. And yet, the gun deaths per capita in all four African and Latin countries were much higher than either Canada or the USA; on average, they were four times higher than the US rate despite there being far fewer guns, and guns per capita, in all of them. Nor did I cherry-pick any outliers; most African nations don't even report these figures, and based on the news reports, countries such as Congo and Nigeria are even more murderously violent than South Africa and Zimbabwe. In Latin America alone, there are six countries with higher per capita gun death rates than Brazil, which is six times higher than the USA.

The low rate of gun ownership in these violent countries not only make it clear that the prevalence of guns cannot possibly explain the relatively high US gun death rate in comparison with other European countries, they clearly indicate that gun deaths are a predominantly racial and/or cultural phenomenon. Since the US is on the track to become a European minority country, it should be readily apparent that as it becomes browner and blacker, it will also become more violent, naturally reflecting the more violent tendencies of the nations from whence the post-1965 immigrants have come instead of those of the European nations who originally populated the country.

If lower gun death rates are a goal, it is clear that reducing the amount of guns will not help, and may even make the matter considerably worse by disarming the law-abiding population and rendering it helpless against the lawless population. The only way to significantly reduce the amount of gun deaths is to repatriate the immigrants who come from countries where people are disproportionately inclined to shoot other people dead. Since most Americans presently appear to prefer higher violent crime rates to stopping immigration, much less reducing the percentage of the non-European/Asian/Arab population through deportation, logic dictates that if gun control proponents are successful in their attempts to reduce the guns per capita rate, the gun homicides per capita rate will rise in proportion to the percentage of the African/Latin population in the general population.

Truth - Casualty of Newton Tragedy

By Tom Rhodes, 12/18/2012

The biggest casualty of the Newton tragedy is the truth. Liberal statist hoplophobes are using the actions of a psychotropic drug addled madman to eviscerate the truth and the bill of rights. They are playing on the emotional turmoil that such an evil act created to attack any who would laud the truth about guns in the USA.

One month ago, the Congressional Research Service released a 113-page report titled, "Gun Control Legislation," authored by William J. Krouse, a "specialist in domestic security and crime policy." The report cites the National Institute of Justice, which indicates that by 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million, approximately one gun for each person in the country: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. The fact that we have seen a dramatic increase in firearms ownership accompanied with an equally dramatic decrease in violent crime, is ignored by gun control zealots. The objective truth is that our "gun culture" has resulted in less violent crime and a safer society.

Basically we've doubled the number of guns posses in our culture and decrease the number of murders by half. Guns are used regularly by victims of crime to defend themselves. Mass murders happen in "Gun Free Zones," The Aurora Colorado shooter chose the only theater in his area that posted signs prohibiting the lawful carry of concealed weapons, as his preferred shooting gallery. Compare that to the number of mass shootings at gun ranges.

The truth about laws restricting arms is self evident and long recognized. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson

The most devastating and massive murder at an American School happened in Bath, Michigan, where 38 children and 7 adults were murdered on May 27, 1927. The school district's treasurer, Andrew Kehoe, detonated a series of improvised explosive devices. At this time the murderer could order a variety of fully automatic machine guns by mail. Obviously readily available guns were not the cause. Both Newton and Bath mass murders of children were the result of the actions of evil men. Lanza and Kehoe are solely responsible for those mass murders, not the tools they chose to do their evil deeds, explosives or guns.

Gun control nuts, are totally disingenuous, the let their hoplophobia and desire to disarm the general public, cloud them from reality. They ignore the other causes of death, or accept other methods of murder, but single out guns not based on empirical evidence but on emotional fear. The cries and wailings of gun control nuts and their objective silence on the two deaths of others recently committed by professional football players is a prime example. Belcher of the Chiefs murdered his girl friend and then shot himself, and the statist left demanded more gun restrictions, but when Price-Brent committed manslaughter using both his car and alcohol killing Jerry Brown Jr. they remain silent. No call to ban booze or cars. You see those same statist lefties like their booze and their cars, but are scared of guns.

When more people drink and drive, more people die. But as the newly released Congressional Research Service report, "Gun Control Legislation", clearly shows as Americans have increased gun ownership, and increased the number of concealed weapons we carry, actual violent crime and murders has gone down. So it is plain that Gun Control Zealots don't actually care about people dying, what they care about is any excuse to increase the scope of government and reduce Americans ability to be self reliant, which depends on their ability to defend themselves.

John Lott, author of "More Guns = Less Crime", has issued a challenge to hoplophobes who are calling for more gun control laws; put a sign on your lawn or in a window of your home: "This is a gun-free zone." To date nobody has taken up his challenge, why?

The truth is rural America has more guns and less violent crime than urban America. Cities like Chicago with severe restrictions and prohibitions on having a gun and using it for self defense, have murder rates higher than many third world countries; even Mexico City has a lower murder rate than Chicago. Gun Control Zealots have no respect for the facts. There have been too many peer reviewed factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt. Gun control laws are not only futile, but have proven to produce problems and more difficulties instead of helping to achieve a goal.

Here is a fact that the press won't cover and is very politically incorrect. White America owns guns at a far greater rate than Black America, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. If you exclude black on black crime, the crime and murder rate in the USA is amongst the lowest in industrialized nations. If you seriously want to address violent crime in the USA, then the place to look is at inner city black culture which is responsible for the majority of violent crime in the USA. Hundreds of black youth have been murdered with guns in Chicago this year alone, the city where laws already prohibit anybody from having a gun. Drive by shootings don't happen in Kennesaw GA, where every head of household is required by law to have a gun. They happen in inner city black neighborhoods, where the community won't rat out black thugs, and vigilante justice not the rule of law reigns. Another ignored fact is that more people have been murdered in the past year without any weapon but with the murder's bare hands than with any rifle, much less a so called "assault" weapon. Where is the call to outlaw people's hands.

Dr. Kleck did some peer reviewed research that showed that regular people use firearms 80 times more often to protect themselves and stop violent crime than firearms are used to commit crime. Gun Control zealots ignore those results, when even their fellow gun haters who are honest about the facts and don't don't like the conclusions, agree with the findings that Dr. Kleck reached. They cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang wrote that in an article of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology titled, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed."

Of the more than a dozen national polls, including one conducted by The Los Angeles Times,that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the gun hating Clinton Justice Department found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. Those studies are over a decade old, newer studies are finding trouble getting funding because those controlling the purse strings, big government statists, won't fund them unless they guarantee pro-gun control results. So unless researchers are willing to suffer the fate of Michael Bellesiles, the Professor of History at Emory University who was forced to resign, when his anti-gun book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," was found "willingly misrepresented the evidence," they no-longer conduct gun research with pre-conceived conclusions. A three-person committee, composed of scholars from Princeton University, Harvard University and the University of Chicago, concluded that Mr. Bellesiles' work showed "evidence of falsification," "egregious misrepresentation" and "exaggeration of data." Bellesiles' work is evidence that statist left hoplophobes promoting more gun control not only ignore the truth, but will lie to get their desires.

Yes we should keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. But the same people who want to disarm America, refuse to lock up crazy people. The perpetrators of 90% of the mass shootings in recent history are known or reasonably suspected to have been prescribed and using psychotropic drugs for mental illness. The research and warnings show that the side effects of psychotropic drugs can be violent unpredictable behavior. The increase in the use of psychotropic drugs on young developing adolescent males closely correlates with the increase in that same group committing evil acts of violence. The side effects of these drugs are known to induce thoughts of suicide, and increased impulsive behavior, yet we continue to use them on our youth. Uninhibited violent behavior is a known and proven side effect of psychotropic drugs. If the goal was less mass murder behavior, and less children murdered, then this not guns, would be the subject of the press and those who care.

More than any other issue, gun owners have proven that they will vote out those in office who attack our right to keep and bear arms. To all our elected officials, remember more gun control laws will result in a loss at the poles regardless of your party. The best example of that is Al Gore, whose anti-gun record cost him his home state of Tennessee, and probably the 2000 election.

Israel's response to terrorism and mass murder directed at schools, was to make sure that there were people voluntarily armed at schools, not every teacher, but enough teacher's, admins, and other private volunteers, so that terrorists and madmen know that they will be confronted with deadly force. Thus Israel eliminated the safe shooting gallery that "gun free schools" create. The truth is, the evil actions of Lanza, do not justify disarming or further restricting guns in America. A determined evil person planning on and willing to take their own life, cannot be stopped by mere laws. Lanza, continued his murder spree until he was confronted by armed law enforcement, where he then killed himself. If he'd been confronted when he first shot his way into the school, not much later when law enforcement finally arrived, he'd have either killed himself or been shot then, not after being given the time to kill 20 innocent children. The truth is "Gun Free Zones" are responsible for the effectiveness of mass murderers who routinely choose these places to commit murderous evil.

The facts don't justify more gun control laws. But then the hoplophobes don't care about truth, and they are supported by statists as their goal is a dependent society who doesn't have the means of self reliance or defense. This country was created by rebels who went to war because the Government actively tried to take away their guns. That's right the first shots fired in the American Revolution were a direct result of the British trying to take away our arms, not taxes, not freedom of religion, not freedom of speech, not the right to vote, but the active assault on private and community arms. This country has attracted and been expanded by people who wanted to be self reliant, and exercise their right to succeed on their own, not on the dictates of some government official. Gun control zealots are horribly mistaken if they think they can legislate away American guns. The people of this country will not willingly relinquish the 310 Million guns we own.

Unintended Consequences of ObamaCare

By Tom Rhodes, 12/2/2012

The Huffington Post reports that Wallmart changing it's Health Care Policy and shifting the burden to Medicaid.. Who'd a Thunk.

Because of the increase in costs associated with Obamacare, companies are taking legal means to reduce their costs. Nothing illegal about WallyWorlds actions. But since they can no longer offer insurance with limits on total pay outs and limited coverage which costs less than the full blown government approved insurance they are being forced to offer, they are adjusting their work practices, increasing the number of workers and giving each less work so that they avoid bigger government induced costs.

How is having low wage earners getting less hours, and having now insurance, better than having more hours and limited insurance? The unintended consequences will be fewer full time employees across a wide variety of businesses. So unemployment will go down as part time jobs explode.

Again another example of more government regulations makes the problem they were trying to fix worse not better. The actual result of Obamacare is less wages and no insurance for more people, not exactly what was promised.

Florida Sen. Rubio Votes Against Bill of Rights.

By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2012

No thanks to Republican Statist Sen. Marco Rubio, who again voted against individual rights and for more government power. Why Republicans think that their party is the party of conservative principles and freedoms, when their leaders continue to prove they have no principles, and only believe in their and their buddies increased power.

Senate Amendment 3018 was create to clarify provisions in to S. 3254 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Republican Statist Marco Rubio has clearly rejected the ideas of the TEA Party that got him elected. He voted against protecting your right to Habeas Corpus and a Jury Trial.

According to the Senate Record, including Rubio the following Republicans also voted against the Bill of Rights

Ayotte (R-NH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

No wonder the GOP had their ass handed to them last month.

RIP, Republic of These United States

By Tom Rhodes, 11/17/2012

A New Hampshire buddy of mine constantly refers to people who moved from Massachusetts to New Hampshire as “MassHoles.” Hating how they left Massachusetts because of the taxes, but then vote to install the same failed programs in New Hampshire. Their motto “Live Free or Die” no longer represents the sentiments of the people of New Hampshire. To pay for all these government “services” New Hampshire has had to raise its taxes to absurd levels. His property taxes have gone from a few hundred dollars a year to nearly $10,000 and because of it he’s had to put it up for sale, and is thus now a Florida Resident.

In Florida we have a saying, “We Don’t Care How You Did It In New York!” That phrase has been augmented with, “Just because you messed up your way of life up north, doesn’t give you the right to move down here and mess up ours.” And “If you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from.” I often lament people moving from up north, to get away from oppressive liberal governments, they cry for the very big state government that chased them out of their state. Michigan is a prime example, now a ghost of what it was, but the people who moved from there, wanted more government than Florida traditionally had, and voted for it. Now unless you’re homesteaded and in the same house for decades, Florida Property taxes looks like Yankee property taxes.

This phenomenon is remarkably consistent. Just ask the natives of Colorado Springs what the influx of Californians has done to their state. People who prefer big government in their place of origin will continue to prefer big government at the place they move. We see it all over the USA.

Now this is not just a local US phenomenon. People who come from places with big government, and who like big government services are going to act like people. They will think short term and in concrete terms, but not look in depth at the causes. People leave an area because of oppressive taxes, bad business environment, more jobs else ware, etc. They don’t relate the massive amounts of services provided by the government that they loved with the reasons why they left. What people want is a regions wealth generously distributed by a benign and caring big government, they fail to realize the very wealth they want to a piece of, was created by people keeping more of what they earned a small government with limited services and powers that takes less of what people earn.

This contradiction is generally invisible, just as many people fail to save when they are young and fail to be prepared for old age. Back to Aesop’s Fable, The Ant and the Grasshopper. We’ve always had Grasshoppers in the USA who failed to make wise life decisions. Lucky we’ve generally had many more Ants, and the Grasshoppers haven’t been plentiful enough to eat all the resources. We can see what happens in the USA when the Ants move and the Grasshoppers are left to run things; Detroit. Once Detroit was the crown jewel of industrialized society, now a city in ruins that cannot support itself.

What makes us think that we can allow the influx of massive numbers of people from other countries and maintain our original paradigm for government? Just like MassHoles changed New Hampshire, and Yankees have so changed Florida it’s not considered “southern” anymore. We cannot absorb massive numbers of people from other cultures and maintain our culture. The demographics or our country have changed. The values of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and wrote our Constitution, are no longer the values of the USA. Davy Crocket’s, “Not Your’s to Give” is a story/speech to which a majority of our country can no longer relate.

America as it was is dead. Not a pessimistic observation, just reality, now we need to learn to deal with it.

Third World View of Government

By Tom Rhodes, 11/16/2012

America has become the largest third world country in the world and will cease to be a super power in about a generation. Think about how third world people treat and use their government. Government is a group of ruling elite who tax them and nominally supply some resources. Voting for more guys who promise to pay more to people from taxes makes sense. Bribing government officials to avoid taxes and get favored status is common. The third world person uses government trying to get all he can from government while paying as little as he can to government, even resorting to bribes etc. Laws are avoided or ignored as they are not applied equally, and a bribe to avoid punishment is cheaper than the taxes. So buy low, sell high, and pay off the government goon to stay in business. This is how the third world works. This is how many of our big cities work, can you say "drug war."

I was an advocate for all individuals being responsible for themselves, and the government not providing "charity." That's a principled but failed position. Since you will not get out of absurdly high taxes, find a way to milk the government for all you can, so that you at least get a portion of those taxes back. Get a legal divorce, your wife may be eligible for food stamps, and other federal aid. Bribe a doctor to say she's disabled. Work for cash wherever you can, etc. If you play it right you spouse could get upwards of $30K in benefits. So what if you're paying alimony, it's a tax right off, and your spouse pays a lower tax rate being that is her only income. It may be possible to play the system and get all your tax dollars back.

Normally this would be a morally reprehensible position, but since our government has removed God from everything else, and no longer considers the Creator the source of our rights, and no longer considers equal treatment under the law to be righteous, you are no longer under a moral obligation to play by the old rules. To survive you must milk the system. Corporations have been doing it for years, it's now time for every other individual to find a way to milk the system for all he can. 47% of us receive more from the government than they pay in. It's time for the rest of us to figure out how to get some of that free money.

Let's face it tens of millions of people who used to work are no longer "employed." The number of people receiving government disability payments has skyrocketed. I don't believe the percentage of disabled people has increased relative to population, just the percentage of people scamming the system to get disability payments from the government. Since we have allowed massive amounts of third world immigration to the USA, we are seeing Third World Treatment of government, "Scam it for all you can as the government is not your friend." Elect those who will give you the most, and find a way to avoid paying taxes. Work for cash if you're at the low end, hide your money off shore if you're at the high end. It's time for the Middle Class to start dipping it's paws into the government coffers. Find a way to scam the government, they are taking through a variety of taxes nearly half of what you make, don't feel guilty about cheating Uncle Sam, he's been fleecing you for years, and has promised to fleece you more.

Obviously voting and "democracy" are not the way to limit and maintain a limited government. We do have a way and the third world immigrants to the USA have shown us the way. The way to limit our government is to cripple it, let's face it; you're "entitled."

Secession, a U.N. Delema

By Tom Rhodes, 11/14/2012

Wow! One week after the election and more than 675,000 people in all 50 states have petitioned the White House to secede from the Union. These United States are no longer “united.” This is enough to trigger promised reviews by the Obama administration. More importantly is it enough to trigger U.N. action.

UN Resolution 1514 (XV) - Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, pretty much recognizes the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence. The UN is aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace. The UN claims to have an important role in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories.

The UN affirms that that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.

The UN declares that it is convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory.

The UN has declared that all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

What in the presence of hundreds of thousands of people’s call for freedom and independence from an oppressive government is the UN going to do?

Will they support the people, or the statist Washington-Wall Street Cabal?

Shush - You Can’t Say That.

By Tom Rhodes, 11/14/2012

A fellow and prominent libertarian noted that he got the point I was making in a previous article but that my arguments were weakened because it was “misogynistic.” Saying that I was implying; “a tendency of women to want greater government involvement in our lives,” and this implication made my entire point less valid. His assertion is politically correct but intellectually dishonest, and illustrates the effect of Political Correctness on discussions in our country, even in the LP. Right now if any man makes any comment on the difference in the sexes and how they behave, even when such comments are historically and observably factual, is considered misogynistic if it doesn’t favor the female. But if something is said, like noting the propensity of men to take risks compared to women, and the adverse effects some risky behaviors have on society, nobody says that such an argument appeals to Misandry and is thus less valid. I find it interesting that this double standard is palpable even among supposedly rational libertarians.

Make no bones about it, what I meant in that previous discussion was an overt direct observation that women in their private lives and historically in their US voting patterns, when given a choice, choose security offered by some authority or person in power over liberty and the accompanying risks. Women have shown that they are far more willing to support use the force by the government to limit liberty not based on any individuals abuse of a right, but on the possibility that a right might be abused. The feel it’s better that everybody’s freedom and liberty are restricted because some individual at some future time might misbehave. Yes this is a stereo type, but that doesn’t make it false. The stereotype that says men lack emotional empathy does not apply to all men, but it is not false for men as a group compared to women.

There is evolutionary evidence for these differences. From an evolutionary and historic perspective the burden of child bearing, nursing, etc. puts women in the unenviable position of requiring somebody to provide for her and her offspring during this period where she is venerable and less physically able to provide for herself. Historically women have needed to sacrifice their individual liberty to a provider and protector, be it a working man, or now the government. Modern technology has mitigated much of the rationale for these decisions, but the evolutionary wiring and disposition is much slower to change, so the attitudes and actions are yet to adjust to differing circumstances and will take many generations to do so.

The problem is that on a historic level Liberty and Freedom for massive amounts of a population is a relatively new and short lived phenomenon, and has yet to prove to be historically sustainable. Factually it is relatively easy to prove that protecting individual’s natural rights, applying the rule of law equally, and allowing people to live with the results of their life choices will provide the highest standard of living for the most people in a society; but emotionally the fact that this system allows some people to suffer for their bad life choices or even bad luck is not palatable to women as a group.

We see this in the socialized feminine idea that a hospital by law must treat anybody in an emergency regardless of ability to pay. Individuals having insurance and a more competitive less monopolized health care industry, would be a higher priorities for our society and individuals would voluntarily make better decisions if they experienced the or witnessed the result of somebody who failed to acquire insurance was allowed to die, it’s a harsh but effective lesson. In the nanny state those lessons never need to be learned. This is not a calloused or heartless position, but a principled rational position that would lead to more people not less being responsible, and voluntary charities being able to cope with the fewer people in actual need of charity.

It is not to say that only women or all women think this way; massive numbers of males, raised without strong father figures, have adopted this line of thought because it is all they’ve been exposed to. There is a biblical/libertarian doctrine that is emotionally bothersome to most women. The idea that; “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” It can be seen in Aesop's fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper. The wisdom of this is lost because as a society we’ve adopted the idea that just because the Grasshopper made poor life choices doesn’t mean he should suffer, the Ant is so rich he can afford to feed the Grasshopper. In fact it isn’t “fair” that the Ant has massive food supplies while the Grasshopper has none. This is an emotional and primarily feminine response to seeing suffering. They would rather sacrifice their and everybody else’s property rights so that they don’t have to experience the emotional turmoil of seeing others suffer. The consequences of this can be seen in the history of our first colonists, most of whom died of starvation, because they discarded the wisdom of 2 Thessalonians 3:10. We learned this lesson the hard way at Plymouth Rock.

As you know the historical norm for mankind has been for most of humanity to live in poverty with a few people in power living in relative luxury. We are seeing a condition where those in power or seeking power are taking advantage of the fact that women as a rule think with emotions over logic. Marx, and those promoting socialism and communism saw this as an essential tool and woman’s suffrage was among the first things enacted when they came to power.

The overregulation of our lives is often referred to as the “Nanny State” not the “Daddy State.” That stereotype is not invalid. If you’re willing to look at history with an open mind, you will see the steady decline of libertarian ideas and policies in the USA is directly related to woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in politics. One of the often voiced fears of woman’s suffrage was that the influence of the woman’s vote would lead to outlawing liquor and instill prohibition; they were right.

John Lott has demonstrated a strong correlative link between women's suffrage and increased per capita state expenditures. The average increase in voter turnouts of 26 and 33 percent that occurred 25 and 45 years after the enactment of women's suffrage in a US state mirror the 24 and 31 percent increases in state spending over the same periods of time. He also concluded: "The two consistent results were: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large." Click Here for details.

Although this is a politically incorrect observation, it’s clear that the timeline of our countries move towards the Nanny State parallels woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in US politics. The fact is if we look at our rights we see that since women received the "right" to vote the results is a massive loss of everybody’s other rights:

1. The right to life is under siege, not just for the unborn, but for disabled children and the elderly.

2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already. In many parts of the country you can’t even eat what you want (but these restrictions are for your own good)

3. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.

4. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.

5. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.

6. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.

7. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.

8. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.

9. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 8.

10. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.

“We The People” was an insult to the Ruling Class. People wanting power have been working over 200 years to re-concentrate control in the USA. Because women think emotionally more than rationally, this has been and is a tool, through “democratic” processes, to remove individual property and other rights for our own good. I’m not saying there is any grand conspiracy to re-establish centralized power, but just playing on women’s emotions is an effective tool that those seeking power or already in power, effectively use; thus the slow march to tyranny is enabled by women’s suffrage and political participation. The need for a husband has been replaced by government, thus fewer marriages and women vote increasingly to give more power to government not individuals, as this makes them more secure and less dependent upon any individual. When you value security over liberty, you will lose liberty. This is a historic fact, and so is the fact that in general women value their security over their liberty.

This article will be attacked on emotional not rational grounds, women, and feminized men will respond emotionally and not look at it rationally. It will not be effective in changing the attitudes of feminine thinkers as this is a dialectic article. Feminine thinkers respond to and are generally convinced by rhetoric not dialectic discussions. This is evidenced by the feminine response to further restrict gun rights after a heinous crime like the mass murder in Aurora Colorado, ignoring the less emotional but thousands of times more frequent use of firearms by people to stop crime without even firing a shot, rational cost benefit analysis was not and is not used in looking at firearms. To Feminine thinkers it is more important to “feel” safe, than to have the responsibility for their own self protection. This places the burden of protection on their provider not themselves, hence they want to grant their provider more power. More people that assume and grant the government the role of provider and protector, the less freedom everybody will have. Thus we see the slow march towards tyranny in the USA directly parallels women’s suffrage and their increased power in politics.

Demographics tell the story

By Tom Rhodes, 11/8/2012


It’s over; the USA as it was constituted is dead. The demographics are such that they prove the old adage about democracies; once the People learn they can vote largess from the treasury it’s over. Meaningful discussion on the free market and personal accountability are going to be fruitless. Those moochers living off the government are not interested, especially in facts.

This is a near insoluble problem. Communications must be two ways; moochers and liberals have zero interest in that type of communicating for the most part. They have adopted a predominantly female propensity for resorting to name calling, ad hominem attacks, or silence because they have no interest in any conversation or communications in which their assertions are questioned. They have no interest in changing their lives, and treat interlocutors the way a mommy treats a petulant child. Children must know that mommy’s word is divine law, and not to be challenged, and mommy has no obligation to explain herself.

It is more than a little amusing to see the credulous expression on a moocher/liberal’s face when the factual truth of their statements is challenged. Just challenge a liberal or moocher and watch the name calling begin. Communications about the fact that government spending and borrowing are unsustainable, and the fact that increased taxes will not result in more government revenue but instead a decrease in productivity, because punishing the greatest producers for producing more has, and always will, result in them working less not more. If extraordinary effort cannot return extraordinary results, nobody will put in the extra effort.

We saw blue tarps over roofs for well over a year after Ivan, Roofs were repaired fast after Andrew; why? After Andrew, massive numbers of people rushed to South Florida to help, bringing tools and materials, sleeping in tents and working 20 hours a day. People put in a Herculean effort because the rewards were great. You don’t see massive numbers of people trying to get to Staten Island to help, why? Because the law now says that you cannot charge more after a storm than before. The anti-gouging laws, mean that extraordinary effort cannot be rewarded with extraordinary rewards, so you don’t see extraordinary effort. Free Markets can and would better allocate resources after a disaster than the government.

History shows repeated failure of democratic or totalitarian wealth redistribution. But today our demographics are more about feelings than facts. Because the thought of people suffering because they, or worse yet their parents, made bad choices is not palatable to the feminized moocher liberal, any and all historic evidence can and is ignored. This can be seen in the voting patterns this year, look at the voting pattern those who thought health care was more important than the deficit. The reality is that with an increased deficit, we won’t be able to afford health care. This simple fact, is meaningless to the typical feminized moocher liberal, who feel that they have a right to force others to work for their health care.

Based on Tuesday’s results, we’re screwed. I know a business owner who is closing his business, not because it’s not making money, but because it will be making a lot less, the owner has enough to live out his days without working and can literally pay zero income taxes (is money is in tax free bonds, gold, and off shore accts). This 50-ish millionaire will be legible for food stamps, etc. within the next few months, and his employees are all going to be job hunting. This is reality of Atlas Shrugged in today’s USA. A producer with no debt is deciding to stop participating because the government tax and regulatory burden on his small business means he will be working just to provide jobs for others with minimal or no reward for his efforts, risk, and investment. He has enough to provide a very high standard of living for himself and his wife and kid for the rest of their lives just about anywhere in the world, even if his money doesn’t earn him a dime.

The feminized liberal moochers will say he’s being selfish, they are going to try to find a way to take/tax his wealth which he already paid vast amounts of taxes. The idea of private property, which includes money, and people having the right to private property, and the protection of private property, is the basis for and reason why the USA became the wealthiest most generous nation the world ever saw. The rejection of this idea, and the mommy inspired idea of everybody getting and equal share of everything regardless effort is the downfall of our country. The idea that competition is bad, and that all kids should get a trophy, not just the winners, or the idea that nobody should feel bad because they didn’t do as good; the idea that has resulted in no more valedictorians in most of our high schools; is the idea and change in our demographics that has killed this once great nation.

Our labor force, from factories to the corner office, were made of high school graduates who valued individual effort, today the country has changed, graduation and SAT scores are at all time lows, and those who do graduate don’t have the basic skills necessary to compete in today’s modern workplace. How are we going to replace the retiring baby boomers who were generally self sufficient products of intact traditional families and a work ethic based on a religious duty to do your best, with today’s liberate, irreverent, ambitionless, entitled barbarian.

The demographics of this election make it clear; we are no longer a self-governing, self-reliant people. Those of us who are no longer have sufficient numbers to effect change and control of our government. So we will see the end of our great nation. Atlas will shrug, and is shrugging. All those of us who know based on historic and scientific fact that the path to prosperity and happiness for the most people in a society is liberty and limited government; no longer have the numbers to make a difference, and rational discussion about the subject will not be tolerated by the majority. The Patriot act, drone killing of US citizens, restrictions on jury trials, etc. all show that we’ve already lost the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Watch for the speech codes of our universities to become the law of the land. Watch for government control of the internet. Watch for increased limits on individual rights to keep and bear arms.

The Russian analysis, by Igor Nikolaevich Panarin, that predicted the breakup of the US was only wrong in its timing, not in the outcome.

Unprincipled Stand of LPF

By Tom Rhodes, Chairman LPF Platform Committee, 11/5/2012

The LPF’s stand on the proposed Florida Constitution amendments is clearly unprincipled and against our own party’s platform. The State Government Section of our platform (1.4 ) clearly states: We support Equality under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Each person has the same inalienable rights. It is the States duty to protect those rights for each individual equally.

Platform Section VI. TAXES reads as follows:

1. The legislature should find more voluntary means of supporting state services, such as lotteries and user fees.

2. Taxation of privately owned real property should be eliminated. In effect, it makes the state the owner of all lands by forcing individuals to pay rent to the state or forfeit their title.

3. The personal property tax on Florida businesses should be repealed.

4. Tax favoritism should be illegal. Abatements, subsidies, credits, or other incentives to businesses based on geographical area, job creation, or any other criteria deny equal protection under the law.

5. Sales tax on used merchandise that is resold results in double taxation and should be eliminated.

6. Adding sales tax to products already subject to specific state taxes, such as gasoline and cigarettes, should be ended. This practice results in double taxation, as consumers are paying a tax on a tax.

7. We oppose any sales or use tax on the Internet.

The official published position of the LPF on Florida’s constitutional amendments includes:

2) Veterans Disabled Due To Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount - This amendment would expand a special homestead property exemption to include combat disabled veterans who were not Florida residents when they entered the military. The discount would be based on a percentage equal to that of the veteran’s permanent, service-related disability. (Read full text)

LPF Recommendation: YES

The LPF's position is that taxation of privately owned real property should be eliminated entirely. In effect, it makes the state the owner of all lands by forcing individuals to pay rent to the state or forfeit their title. While the LPF maintains that all laws should be applied equally rather than the laws being designed to selectively benefit or harm certain groups, in this instance the opportunity to reduce the tax burden imposed by the state is a step in the right direction towards total elimination of the property tax. A reduction in collected property taxes, even though directed at a certain group, will result in limiting the size and scope of government which will benefit all individual Floridians. The LPF will continue to work to reduce the property tax with the ultimate goal of complete elimination.

...

4) Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction For Nonhomestead Assessment Increases; Delay Of Scheduled Repeal - This amendment would prevent increases in the assessed value of homestead properties and some non-homestead properties when the market values for those properties decrease. It also would reduce the annual growth assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. In addition, it would provide first-time homesteaders with an additional exemption equal to 50% of the home’s market value. However, that exemption would drop to zero after five years. (Read full text)

LPF Recommendation: YES

While this amendment is not perfect by any means, it will have the effect of reducing real property taxes, or at least slow the rate of tax increase, for most residential and commercial property owners in Florida.

...

9) Homestead Property Tax Exemption For Surviving Spouse Of Military Veteran Or First Responder -This amendment would give a homestead property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a military veteran or first responder killed in the line of duty. The provision would authorize the Legislature to totally or partially exempt a surviving spouse’s homestead property from being taxed.

LPF Recommendation: YES

For the same reasons stated in support of Amendment 2, the LPF recommends a "YES" vote on Amendment 9 in order to continue to reduce the property tax burden on Floridians resulting in a less taxes collected by the state and a limiting of the size and scope of government. The LPF will continue to work to reduce the property tax for all Floridians with the ultimate goal of complete elimination.

...

11) Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency On Property; Equal To Assessed Value - This amendment would authorize the Legislature to let counties and municipalities grant an additional homestead tax exemption for low-income seniors. The exemption would be equal to the assessed value of a homestead property, if: its market value is less than $250,000; the owner has maintained permanent residence there for at least 25 years; the owner is at least 65; and the owner has a low household income under law.

LPF Recommendation: YES

This amendment is slightly different than Amendments 2 and 9 because it only authorizes the Legislature to allow (rather than mandate) counties and municipalities to grant additional homestead exemptions to low-income seniors who meet certain conditions. The most efficient and accountable form of government is that which is most easily accessible by the people, the smallest, and closest to home. This amendment will result in a grant of additional authority to our counties and municipalities. By placing this decision into the hands of our local governments the citizens of Florida will have a greater ability to express their opinions to their local elected officials through petition and via the ballot box. The LPF believes that the property tax should be eliminated entirely rather than bit by bit to certain groups, however, the LPF supports continued reduction in the property tax burden of Floridians as we continue to work towards total elimination.

Although these positions are in the spirit of the Platform position to reduce/eliminate property taxes, they clearly violates the for more principled and repeated positions and themes of the LPF Tax favoritism should be illegal and condemnation any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification.

All of those amendments apply unequal treatment under the law, and reward certain groups preferential treatment under the law. In no way can these positions be considered to be principled libertarian positions.

The LPF official positions only establish that special rights and privileges for some is acceptable. “The LPF believes that the property tax should be eliminated entirely rather than bit by bit to certain groups, however, the LPF supports continued reduction in the property tax burden of Floridians as we continue to work towards total elimination.” The official position recognizes that this is an unprincipled position, and does nothing to explain why in any of these instances unequal treatment under the law should be accepted, the idea that some people getting less taxes while working on all people having less taxes undermines the very principles of liberty our country was founded.

Since none of those amendments promote or even recognize the desire to eliminate property taxes, and all promote tax favoritism, how can we say Tax Favoritism Should Be Illegal and tell voters to vote Yes, on constitutional amendments that promote tax favoritism?

Calling ourselves the “Party of Principle” then telling people to vote for unequal treatment under the law is not only contradictory, but clearly unprincipled.

Facts of the Obama Presidency and Your Choices

By Tom Rhodes, 10/29/2012

The Obama Presidency is by measurable standards a failure.

When he took office there were 2.7 million long-term unemployed; the number of long-term unemployed is now over 5 million.

Income for the middle class has dropped nearly 10% from $54,962 to $51,002.

Gas prices more than doubled, it cost about $1.85 a gallon and is now at around $3.85.

Wars expanded in Middle East

Gitmo still open

US Citizens executed without arrest or trial

You want more total people unemployed then vote for Obama.

You want less income for the middle class then vote for Obama.

You want higher gas prices (as he clearly stated he wanted) then vote for Obama.

You want more undeclared War then vote for Obama.

You want less civil liberties then Vote for Obama.

Look at your grocery bill (or at the sizes of packaging). To keep from having to increase benefits to senior citizens, which are tied to inflation, the government has removed food and fuel from its cost of living calculations. Unless your blind if you buy groceries you know inflation is here, and your dollar is worth less. So we don't make as much in absolute dollars, and each dollar we have buys less than before. Kennedy made huge economic improvements in the short time he was in office. Reagan made dramatic improvements in the double digit inflation and huge interest rates and massive unemployment in his first 4 years. Obama can no longer blame the previous administration for our current conditions.

Help Obama Keep his word and be a one term presidency if the economy hasn't improved, don't vote for him.

That should not be read as an endorsement for Romney, it isn't. Romney on economic matters differs minimally from Obama. Romney is a Liberal New England Blue Blood, whose sole purpose is to protect old money (banks).

None of the actions of Romney while governor would lead a reasonable person to believe that he would stand up for civil liberties any more than Obama has. None of the actions of Romney would lead a reasonable person to believe that we would get out of war any more than Obama.

If you vote the issues then you won't vote for either Obama and Romney. Do the research yourself and look at more than just the Goldman Sachs approved choices of the Republicans and Democrats. On the issues compare Gary Johnson to the other guys. If you agree with more of Johnson's positions than Romney's or Obama's then vote for him. Don't worry, as no single vote can sway an election, you'll be better off if you vote your heart, you'll be able to live with yourself and your single vote compared to the 100 million or so other votes won't make a difference. But your single vote for the only candidate who doesn't support more war, who is for fiscal responsibility, and promotes civil liberty will make you feel better and send a small message to the Washington-Wall Street Cabal, that you are not happy with the current choices offered by the Goldman Sachs approved Republocrats and Demicans.

The Cross is Offensive

By Tom Rhodes 10/20/2012

Like no other religious symbol the world finds the cross offensive. In Galatians 5:11 Paul wrote, "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished." Paul was under attack when he wrote those words because he was making it very clear that there is only one way to salvation. Preaching that we can only be saved through the cross of Christ is a message that the world finds offensive.

Proof that Paul was right can be seen today in the actions of Louisiana State University who purposefully edited out the cross in this image.

This is a group of students called “The Painted Posse,” who paint their bodies with LSU school colors and small crosses for every home game.

What LSU published was this:


LSU officials reasoning was they didn’t want to offend non Christians.

The question is why does the world expect Christians to be tolerant of all other beliefs, but is totally intolerant of Christianity? The fact is the bible is the source of libertarian beliefs, it is Christians who eventually ended acceptance of slavery in the western world, it is Christians that pushed for equal rights and tolerance of other beliefs. Other religions don’t share such beliefs and are not willing to fight for others regardless of beliefs as Christians are. The example of the cross and what it means, shames others to such a degree as they find the Cross offensive. Over 100 years ago C.H. Spurgeon preached on the subject, and it has been a theme in seminaries and sermons for as long as there has been a Church.

The rule of law, rather than rule of dictates by Imams, dictators, kings, etc. is based on Christian principles. In The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny, Augusto Zimmermann clearly shows how the rule of law as an effective check on tyranny has its roots in Christianity.

“The rule of law is therefore far more than the mere existence of positive laws, as it also requires the state to act in accordance with principles of a ‘higher law’. The search for such ‘higher law’ implies, however, a moral discussion on what laws ought to be. If so, the rule of law becomes an impracticable and even undesirable achievement for societies not subject to certain patterns of cultural and religious behaviour. On the other hand, any radical change in such patterns can certainly produce undesirable consequences for the realization of the rule of law.”

Consider Islam; Islamists find the Cross offensive because it points out that unlike Christianity, Islam condones unequal treatment of believers and non-believers, it condones lying to unbelievers, it condones murder of unbelievers. The standard Christ set is impossible and the only means of salvation is through him, thus those who reject the cross cannot tolerate and find offensive the standard the cross represents because it clearly shows that they fall short.

LSU is well within its right to censor the image, they have freedom of speech. The fact that they recognize that the cross is offensive is further testimony to the Truth, that is Jesus Christ.

Taxes Used to Violate Rights

By Tom Rhodes, 10/8/2012

Last Sunday was Pulpit Freedom Sunday. As Libertarians we should celebrate the bravery of the hundreds of pastors who thumbed their nose at the IRS and preached about politicians and politics in defiance to the government. The idea that the first amendment allows the state to regulate the speech of the church is absurd. The entire Bill of Rights it is a limit on the government not the people or any organization which they form and belong. Pastors not the government should determine what is said from the pulpit.

Statist arguments from those who say to pastors, "If you want to exercise your right to free speech, just give up your tax-exempt status" are illogical and absurd on their face. It would be the same as telling everyone that in order to deduct your homes mortgage interest from your taxes you must give up your right to be free from warrantless searches of your home. The idea is that because the government is in essence paying for your house with a tax deduction it has the right to search your house any time for any reason or for no reason at all. That idea is invalid on many fronts.

It makes as much sense as saying, "if you want to maintain your right to a jury trial, just give up your tax-exempt status." Just like a jury trial, and the right to keep and bear arms, and the right not to testify against yourself, are all rights not privileges grated by the government which can be taken away based on an arbitrary tax classification, the right to free speech and religion is just that, constitutionally protected rights, not privileges that can be revoked by dangling the tax-exempt status of a pastor's church over his head. The IRS rule against free speech for pastors should be declared unconstitutional.

Tax cuts or exemptions do not "subsidize" religion or anything else. An IRS tax-exempt status to a church is not a subsidy unless all money belongs to the government. Last year the US Supreme Court rejected that idea. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. "Like contributions that lead to charitable tax deductions, contributions yielding STO tax credits are not owed to the State and, in fact, pass directly from taxpayers to private organizations. Respondents' contrary position assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector's hands. That premise finds no basis in standing jurisprudence. Private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona State Treasury." It is clear that the government has no automatic right to a church's money because a pastor doesn't give up his right to free speech. There is no right for the government to be free from the church or from the beliefs of the citizens; rather the government is restricted from restricting free speech and the free exercise of religion. Our constitution doesn't restrict churches or pastors or the people, it restricts the government.

Whether a group is formed to promote model aviation (the AMA) or promote doctors (the AMA) or promote motorcycle racing (the AMA), or promote management training (the AMA), or to market marketing (the AMA), or to give music awards (the AMA), or promote a religion, or promote a group of workers, they should all have the same rules applied equally, and all have their rights respected equally. Any other position is unjust. Charities are non-profits and have been outside the legitimate tax base since the founding of our nation. Our government has no more right to a church's money because its pastor won't give up his constitutionally protected right to free speech, than it has the right to curb the speech of any other non-profit, like the AMA, ACLU, PETA, VFW, or AFL-CIO.

If you think that because an individual receives a tax deduction for contributions to a church as being a benefit that justifies restricting the freedom of speech from the pulpit, why isn't that claim as true for any other organization that you can receive a tax deduction when you make a donation. Should the United Way have its free speech squelched? Why should churches be treated any differently?

Union dues are tax deductable and unions are tax exempt, if churches can't promote or endorse a candidate without losing their tax exempt status why can unions? I know the IRS classifies churches as 501(C)3 organizations and Unions as 501(C)5 organizations, but it is illogical, absurd, and reprehensible to limit the speech rights of a group of people for some arbitrary classification by the government; especially when it is the government and not the people or any assembly of people that is constitutionally limited.

If you support the idea that pastors should not be allowed to endorse or financially support candidates then you must support the idea unions should not be allowed to endorse candidates. As libertarians we can and do support all forms of free speech, even that of pastors to endorse and criticize candidates from the pulpit. Last Sunday 1600 pastors were brave enough to stand up to statism, we salute all of you who took up the challenge. Our current tax system is now being used to control and restrict our constitutionally protected freedoms, it is time to scrap the entire thing and start over.

If the Government Doesn't Do It Who Will?

By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2012

Statists, mostly Democrats and Republicans work under the false assumption, a lie, that if the government doesn't do it, then nobody will. This is a lie, the people can and will do for themselves if the government would get just out of the way.

Consider emergency services like fire/rescue other first responders. Having well trained first responders in a community is necessary, but taxes and the government are not necessary for the people to have safe effective first responders in a community. Statists hate and work at eliminating where the people, not the government, take care of themselves. Right now Hillsborough county and its supporters in the leftist press are denigrating volunteer fire/rescue plans. This is a power grab not actually for the benefit of the citizens. It is trying to force a one-size-fits-all plan of government control on everybody.

The fact is at zero cost to the taxpayer and zero cost to patients in southern part of Hillsborough county basic life-support services are provided by the Sun City Center Emergency Squad. This all-volunteer organization is entirely supported by donations within the community and periodically by community grants. Let me repeat that, at NO COST TO TAXPAYERS OR PATIENTS.

It is a pure fiction that if the government doesn't provide a service that the service will not happen. Covering southern Hillsborough County, highly trained and licensed volunteers went on 6,100 emergency runs, all without billing a patient or taxpayers a single dime. To replace that free service to the community and patients, Hillsborough County would have sent over $4Million and charged each patient.

Even where effective zero cost to taxpayer systems are in place, statists want to eliminate that and institute "better" government provision of those services. They denigrate organizations like the Sun City Center Emergency Squad not because that organization is not doing a good job, but because it is a clear demonstration that we don't actually need the government for everything. Statists cannot allow actual real proof that private charity and the people can take care of themselves. The reality is that many, if not most, of government services could be supplied privately. The problem is control, statists want central control of public services, as it provides a means to control the masses. If the people can and do take care of themselves, it shows that the people don't "need" the government, but worse for statists it means that the government has less power, and less authority. Volunteer fire/rescue also puts more emphasis on local governments, not big county or state or federal agencies. Statists want more control in fewer hands, not distributed control subject to the will of the people.

The call to replace volunteers with "professionals" is not a call to provide better services, it is a call to take away local autonomy and centralize control and make people dependent upon the state not themselves. It should be rejected. The fact is if the government doesn't do it, we the people will; the 440 volunteers at the Sun City Center Emergency Squad are proof.

Reality Check

By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/2012

Morpheus offered the red or blue pill, it didn't make a difference, the choice was not real, the Wachowski brothers pre-determined the outcome. Forget the gloom and doom if Obama is re-elected. The facts don't justify the fears. The reality is that If Obama is re-elected he will not and cannot usher in socialism, collapse, etc. Obama may say his performance was "Incomplete" but the fact is he failed and cannot institute his evil plans. Let's face it his speech at the DNC was not 2008's full of promises, hope and change. In his 2008 campaign he routinely made bold promises and predictions like reducing the debt by ½ etc. that he now knows he cannot fulfill. Reality has hit Obama.

In reality Obama delivered the opposite of many of his promises; budget deficit is double not half of what it was; his anti-war promises have resulted in sending more troops to what has historically been the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan, and his use of drone attacks on country after country with which we have not declared war; his often claim to stand in 2008 against the redefinition of marriage resulted in his support of gay marriage; the list of broken promises is hundreds long. But then he met his promises just as well as George H. "No New Taxes" Bush did.

Some facts that are scary include large ammunition purchases by many federal agencies that directly report to the president, and his claiming and asserting that the president has a right to assassinate US citizens without due process; evidence supports the idea that he is trying to keep his promise of a internal "police" force as well armed and funded as the military.

Obama will not be successful in any more of his original big ideas of the 2008 election in his second term. If re-elected his second term will be like that of most other presidents, he will be busy trying to survive and/or cover up the abuses of his first term; Nixon and Clinton were impeached, Regan had Iran Contra, etc. "Fast and Furious" is already outed, but dead border patrol agents made possible by giving guns to drug lords in Mexico as an excuse to blame lax US gun laws is probably small potatoes compared to what we have yet to learn.

Obama now knows a lot that has changed his candidacy this year from 2008: the economy has not and is not improving; Obama knows that far fewer people are working than when he took office; he knows what he's directed or allowed his administration to do, that the people and press don't yet know; he's confident that the Republicans will retain the House, and may that they may gain the Senate, so he knows he won't get the laws he wants; he knows and understands that his entire second term if he wins will be 4 years of a lame duck presidency. His obvious lack of enthusiasm for the job is more than evident.

That may be good for the American People, Romney who clearly is not substantively different than Obama, may be far worse for the USA if he wins. Unlike Obama if Romney wins the next 4 years he won't have a opposing house and will be able to institute his big government, big business, mandates against individual liberty. His behavior at the RNC indicates that he would be just as likely as Obama to rule by fiat. He may even be more aggressive as silencing speech that doesn't support/promote the government as Obama has tried. The only salvation is that if Romney wins the Press will be against him. I'm not sure which would be better for the country, a crony-capitalist president like Romney, with a congress who supports him but who the press actively criticizes and attacks, or a crony-socialist president like Obama without congressional support but who has the support of the press.

At least if Obama wins we have a man in office who by his own admission spent his seminal years smoking pot and bucking the system who if history is any indication, will spend a lot of time on the golf course avoiding exposing himself or his administration to more attacks, not a driven corporatist who will further cronyism at the expense of the average citizen's liberty.

Of course if the GOP or Democrats are foolish enough to allow Gary Johnson into the debates, all bets are off as most people in this country agree with his ideas, and a Johnson win would not only be a boost for all individuals, but would embolden the liberty loving side of the GOP, and RLC and Tea Party side would support his plans, and the liberty loving side of the Democrats who promote civil rights and are against stupid wars would also be an ally. But unfortunately for us he won't be in the debates, and the press won't give the people a chance at real choice. The best we can hope for is a divided government that can't get anything done, because what both Obama and Romney want to do will empower government and the ruling elite's cronies at the expense of the American people.

Ask yourself; are you better off with more liberty or less? Then ask yourself if the past 50 years of more and more government has made you better off than your parents or grandparents? Do you find that unlike the past you need more than one income to support your household? Electing the same corporate cronies, Republican or Democrat, has only proven to increase the size and scope of government and decrease the value of individuals, If we elect either of them again it will produce the same; more laws and regulations limiting liberty, protecting the crony corporate friends of government, and making it harder for the individual. If Romney or Obama wins it won't be much different for the average American, maybe that's why at the last election more people (over 70 Million registered voters) choose to stay home rather than vote for either Obama or McCain, since it wasn't really a choice voting wasn't worth the effort. Goldman Sachs and the big banks are financially supporting both Obama and Romney. You see the ruling elite had a debate among themselves while dining on filet mignon have decided what's best for everybody is tofu. When you crave and need a good steak and you're only offered artificially colored red or blue tofu burgers, does choosing really matter?