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

Friday, April 27, 2012

Inconvenient Truth Hurts

By Tom Rhodes 4/24/2012

Stupid facts keep getting in the way of Global Warming Alarmists. Global Warming, now called climate change because for the past dozen years there hasn't been any global warming, is being used as an excuse to concentrate power in the hands of ruling elite, and is not based on solid science.


Stupid facts not matching what the statists, who want power over every aspect of our lives, wish to portray are having problems like polar bears, the very image of global warming, are doing very well actually. WattsUpWithThat.com reports noted that the image of a stranded polar bear doesn't jive with National Geographic's longest recorded polar bear swim of 426 miles or recent Canadian survey which found a 66% higher than expected polar bear population. "The (polar) bear population is not in crisis as people believed. There is no doom and gloom," according to Drikus Gissing, director of wildlife management for the Nunavut region in Canada. Note that it is reported that the scientist for the Canadian Department of the Interior, whose 2004 research concerning drowning polar bears which inspired Al Gore and others has been placed on administrative leave for unspecified wrongdoing.

Speaking of Wrongdoing, don't forget that Professor Peter Gleick, who was chairman of the ethics committee at the American Geophysical Union, and a supposed ethics expert with the Pacific Institute. Was caught and subsequently admitted to stealing documents from Heartland last February. It appears that he also forged other documents to attempt to make the think-tank look bad. MSNBC reported that "In the field of climate science, when someone - especially skeptics - did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts, scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society's ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming." I wonder if he'll get his own award this year, since the forged data exposed in Climate Gate was out last year, the field of new exposed liars in global warming is smaller. He will have to compete with NASA but he might win.

Down in the Antarctic, new satellite survey technology has resulted in finding that there are about twice as many emperor penguins as previously thought. Again facts don't support global warming alarmists.

Glaciers are actually growing not shrinking. A Nature study using satellite imagery, showed that higher glaciers have been adding ice, specifically the Himalayan Karakorum range, has added significant mass over the past decade. This of course does not match the UN IPCC 2007 prediction that "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035..." Yes the IPCC retracted that and said it was based on an old 1999 media interview, but then the actual science is not important to global warming alarmists, and they only retracted the finding when exposed.

What global warming alarmists don't like or want to talk about is that some glaciers are melting because of unseen volcanic activity releasing massive amounts of heat. Volcanic activity in general is not considered or counted in any of the global warming alarmist models. Spewing massive amounts of pollutants and nothing to say of the huge amount of heat, excluding volcanic activity from climate models only makes those models less reliable.

How could anybody say that this affects climate?






Even media darling and doomsday author James Lovelock who's works include hysterical titles like "Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back - and How We Can Still Save Humanity," and "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning - Enjoy It While You Can" has even changed his tune. Lovelock, agrees with IPCC acknowledging that although CO2 levels are still rising the result is not an automatic and direct rise in temperature. In an April 23, 2012 MSNBC interview he says, "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that now". "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."

Earthlier this year 49 Prominent NASA Scientists and Astronauts have publicly spanked NASA for supporting global warming alarmism without supporting scientific evidence.

The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: "...it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010." Oops, they were wrong, populations in coastal areas like the Bahamas increase and environmental migrants never appeared (LINK, but the UN did try to cover up its mistake. (LINK

It's simple look for power and money. Like everything else follow the money, when an environmental study concludes we need more government control or more centralized control, or more regulations, look at who paid for the study. If the study was paid for by the government and it concludes or is used to further increased government regulation, or more power with the government, then just like a study paid for by Monsanto which says genetically modified food is better than food grown organically with from heirloom seeds you might want to consider the source.

The truth is that any "scientific" study which empowers who ever funded it should be questioned, especially if it is government funded and is used to limit individual liberty and empower government. The truth is that ".. we don't know what the climate is doing." Truth Hurts! Especially the truth that statists are using "climate change" to further erode individual rights and concentrate power in a few elite. This is the truth that must be exposed and addressed.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Libertarian Leader Prophesies Zombie Apocalypse Nov. 6, 2012

By Tom Rhodes 4/27/2012



Libertarian party of Florida (LPF) Chair Adrian Wyllie in a recent 1787Network.com commentary said the following:
“I did some research and found there are a ton of apocalyptic prophesies, they all result in a really bad hair day for all life on Earth and seem to align perfectly with the Mayan calendar and 2012.

I love a good conspiracy, there’s no government capable of keeping quiet about something that could potentially eradicate mankind.

Nothing is impossible. But I can say, based on the “science”, you should be worried a zombie apocalypse in 2012.”

In a private conversation that this reporter had with the LPF Chairman, it was clear that he was serious about his prophesy, and offered an exact date for the Zombie Apocalypse of November 6, 2012.




Now the truth of the matter is the above quote is an edited down version of the article. The same methods used by NBC to edit George Zimmermans 911 tape were used. I cut out phrases and words to shorten the article into a sound-bite. Like the Zimmerman’s 911 tape the editing may change the meaning, and you might be able to come to different conclusion than if you had the entire thing. But in this case it does make for some funny reading. Seriously if you define the terms Adrian’s prophesy is accurate. The Zombie Apocalypse should be taken at least as seriously as the US government takes it. The CDC has even published a guide on how to prep for the coming Zombie Apocalypse.

If you're    ready for a zombie apocalypse, then you're ready for any emergency.    emergency.cdc.gov


Because of the seriousness of the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse, they government has produced Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic. This was published on May 18, 2011, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It provides tips on how to survive a zombie invasion. Although the CDC does not claim an outbreak is likely or imminent, it states: "That’s right, I said z-o-m-b-i-e a-p-o-c-a-l-y-p-s-e. You may laugh now, but when it happens you’ll be happy you read this...." The CDC goes on to underscore the value of laying in water, food, medical supplies, and other necessities in preparation for any and all potential disasters, be they hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, or hordes of zombies. On October 17, 2011, The Weather Channel published an article, "How To Weather the Zombie Apocalypse." Obviously we should take the Zombie Apocalypse seriously.

Now to better understand LPF Char Adrian Wyllie’s prediction of a November 6, 2012 Zombie Apocalypse, let’s get our definitions strait.

Zombie - is unproductive uncivilized brainless group who hunger for the flesh (property) of productive civilized individuals, zombies expect to keep making the same choices (gorging on society’s output regardless of their individual input) but get different results (increased wealth and economic output); these can be best be termed Democrat and Republican voters.

Apocalypse - is any universal or widespread destruction or disaster, in this case of the pending November 6, 2012 Zombie Apocalypse it refers to the election or reelection of a statist to head the formerly free republic of the United States of America.

The reason for the apocalyptic prophesy is simple; the only choices we are being offered by the two major parties are the same. Whether you pick Obama or Romney, you are stuck with a elitist statist educated in an exclusive New England college designed for blue bloods who believes that it is the right and duty of the government to dictate how people should live for their own good, and that government authority should be increased at the expense of individual liberty because they as the ruling elite know what’s best for everybody.

Because the LPF Chair is right, (as ususal), you should be prepared. The CDC Agrees.

If you're    ready for a zombie apocalypse, then you're ready for any emergency.    emergency.cdc.gov

Question of the Day

By Tom Rhodes, 4/26/2012

This week, Florida Rep. Alan West posed the following question:

As Americans, we must bring to the fore this fundamental discussion of what we want our country to be. Do we veer from our Founders’ vision of a constitutional republic that preserves and protects the individual sovereignty of its citizens, along with the free market and the rights of the several states, or do we continue to slide down this path of expanding the secular welfare state, nationalizing production and enforcing economic equality? ~ Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) - 04/24/12

Old labels of Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, or whatever, are no longer appropriate. Democrat and Republican are also meaningless. Consider the difference between the candidates for president both parties have offered us. The difference between Obama and Romney is one has more hair. Both parties offer us elitist snobs who graduated from prestigious New England schools. Both routinely support the exact same positions. ObamaCare and RomneyCare only vary in control point not in substance. On Guns both have supported; restrictions on hand guns, assault weapons ban, and restrictive background checks. Both support government bailouts of favored businesses. Both want a stronger executive branch with power like the Line Item Veto. Both support the idea that the President has the authority to assassinate any US citizen he wants without due process. Both support the FED and want to retain its current head. Both support indefinitely detaining US citizens on mere suspicion of terrorist support without judicial redress, due process, or basic constitutional rights. Both have and receive donations and support from the same money groups: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup. Both Obama and Romney firmly believe in big government over individual liberty and responsibility.


Let’s put a label that is meaningful and usable on parties and their soon to be nominated presidential candidates’ statists, men and parties who believe in statism. From Dictionary.com statism * noun, has 2 definitions:

  • 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

  • 2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

    A less formal definition that fits well is that statism is the belief that government knows best – that it has the knowledge, ability and power not just understand people’s problems, but actually solve them as well. This is an absurd notion that was long ago described by Friedrich Hayek, as “fatal conceit.” The vast majority of our Washington ruling class believe that it the government’s right and duty, to dictate the people’s actions and choices in order gain results to advance the “common good.” They believe that because some people may make choices, like drinking raw milk, that they feel are not in an individual’s best interest, they have the government has the right to dictate the voluntary actions of each individual.

    This clearly and accurately defines the position of the vast majority of our ruling class in Washington. It clearly flies in the face of the original positions of our founding fathers and the mission statement of our government as defined in our Declaration of Independence.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

    Few in both of the major parties are willing to take up the debate and even address the fundamental question Re. West poses. West’s fellow representatives in the Congressional Progressive Caucus take “umbrage” with his equating their ideals with communism. They don’t even want it discussed because their ideas, are nearly identical with other Marxist ideals and have proven to be a failure wherever actually implemented. Current statists don’t want open and honest debate on fundamental ideas. Why can’t we discuss the fundamental basics to our government? It appears that there is a concerted effort to silence any basic question on individual freedom, movement from laws created by elected representatives to executive bureaucratic regulations, and questions on what fairness is. As Rep. West states:

    We must be able to openly discuss how our fundamental freedoms are being slowly chipped away by an over-reaching nanny state that has bit by bit slipped its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, from the types of light bulbs we can use to the size of our toilet tanks.

    We must be able to challenge the mandates being handed down by un-elected officials, which threaten our constitutional right to practice religion however we see fit.

    We must be able to question tax policies predicated on “fairness” that punish job creators and do virtually nothing to reduce our spiraling debt and deficit.

    Today those who claim to be “progressive” actively espouse Marxist ideology. They have taken over the progressive term after destroying the credibility of communist socialist and fascists. They are now doing the same to the term “progressive”. Progressive was the for runner of liberal, but since that term now has such a negative connotation these extreme statists have reverted back to progressive. At one time we had a Progressive political party. The Progressive Party of 1912 was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt. It’s platform of 100 years ago was very similar to current Democrat platform with obvious differences associated with the times.



    In the social sphere the platform called for

    • A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
    • Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
    • Limited injunctions in strikes
    • A minimum wage law for women
    • An eight hour workday
    • A federal securities commission
    • Farm relief
    • Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
    • An inheritance tax
    • A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
    • Women's suffrage
    • Direct election of Senators
    • Primary elections for state and federal nominations
    • The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
    • The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
    • The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
    • Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

    Many of the Progressive Party goals were reached, many of those goals were good and did protect individual liberty like workers’ comp., but most of the planks most were to strengthen centralized authority and actively replace our republic with direct democracy; a form of government our forefathers warned us against, because it historically leads to mob rule and suppression of individual liberty at the direction of the masses. Progressives now ignore the requisite of the people in our society as eloquently stated by Progressive Party Founder Teddy Roosevelt, "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." The mantra is now the repeatedly failed socialist idea of wealth redistribution.

    Our government conceived in liberty has followed the path to tyranny as predicted by Thomas Jefferson; “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

    Why today’s progressives refuse to debate their positions, or even allow the recognition that their ideas are in fact socialist in nature is a question that must be addressed. With rare exceptions, the very idea of individual sovereignty is not even allowed to be a discussion point among the ruling class in Washington. Although I don’t agree with much of Rep. Alan West’s positions, his question does deserve merit and discussion.
  • Wednesday, April 25, 2012

    Florida Rep. Works with Socialist to Nullify Rights

    By Tom Rhodes 4/25/2012

    Democrat Rep. Ted Deutch [D-FL19] with Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, has cosponsored an amendment that would be a drastic and fundamental change to the US Constitution. Last week in Washington, several congressmen and senators held a forum to draw attention to their attempt to nullify constitutional right of entrepreneurs and corporations. The Sanders-Deutch Amendment says the government can ignore constitutional rights.

    The Sanders-Deutch Amendment says: "The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state."

    This means that the Bill of Rights is nullified; if you exercise your First Amendment right of assembly and the government decides that that assembly is for business purposes then your constitutional rights do not extend to you. If you as a private entity form a LLC or sole proprietor corporation, limited partnership, or the like, then you give up your constitutional rights. Basically if you are successful you must give up your right to free speech, etc.

    The fact that a Florida Congressman would openly promote such a tyrannical statist change to our Constitution is hard to fathom.

    The Sanders-Deutch Amendment also says, "Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States". Since there are virtually no limits to what can be regulated, from what you can eat or serve in your restaurant to what kind of light bulb you can purchase what Florida Rep. Ted Deutch is saying that if you are successful enough to use legal means to protect yourself, LLC's, corporations, etc. you give up your constitutional rights.

    If the Sanders-Deutch Amendment passes then for any legal corporation, including individual people successful enough to incorporate, then all their papers, data, and property can be searched or confiscated with no warrant or due process, because this amendment says that constitutional rights are only valid for "natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations." This means that no group, or LLC, or partnership, or corporation has the right to defend itself in court, fight abuse of the government, or even publicly say what the government is doing to them. This applies to internet companies, Doctors, insurance companies, every business; this gives the government the right to have access any and all information that any business has on any individual without needing a warrant. From your purchases at Amazon to the private notes of your shrink, this Amendment makes what little privacy we have a thing of the past.

    If you are in business and the government wants your property, you no longer have to be justly compensated; you no longer have the right to sue the government if they take your property. If the Army needs more housing for troops, then put them in the local motel, at the motel's expense, as that outdated Third Amendment "does not extend to for-profit corporations". The government won't even need to tax the rich, they will be allowed to just go to any bank and take what funds they want from any corporate account, as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures "does not extend to for-profit corporations". When a company invents something cool, the government will be able to take it, patent laws will apply to protect companies from other companies, but if abused by the government the "right" to redress grievances "does not extend to for-profit corporations".

    Any business could be silenced, deprived of liberty or property, all without due process of law or just compensation because the Sanders-Deutch Amendment removes constitutional protections against these types of abuses. This sounds like, and is, the government wanting subjects with no power to fight the government. Once people assemble and form a group to fight the government, they lose their rights. This is a sick perverted means to justify government tyranny.

    Not only does the Sanders-Deutch Amendment negate the free speech of groups of people, including corporations, it indirectly eliminates the rights of all individuals. At the forum where Florida Democrat Deutch and Vermont Socialist Sanders promoted their proposed insanely demented and radical constitutional amendment to nullify the Bill of Rights, Democrat Leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats now have a unambiguous scheme to "amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns." That is simply the statist's emotional call to sell the public on the need for an Amendment to eliminate constitutional restrictions on the power of government.

    Thursday, April 19, 2012

    The gun You Need to Protect Your Castle

    Editors Note: This article was liberated from another site, the infromation is too good not to share. Full credit should go to the author Phil Elmor, in fact you should read all his stuff.



    The gun You Need to Protect Your Castle
    by Phil Elmore

    The home defense firearm is, by definition, a weapon kept in the home, accessible to those inside the home in case of some attempted break-in. Whether the break-in is an angry ex-boyfriend pounding on the door, a determined home invasion by practiced criminals, some other burglary, or even civil unrest washing into your neighborhood from the world outside, you keep a home-defense gun because you wish to be able to protect your family and yourself in what is your last refuge: the place where you live. The home-defense firearm is the most important piece of technology you will ever bring into your dwelling.

    If they have their way, liberals, Democrats and leftists of every stripe would mandate that you and your family be helpless. They do not want you to protect yourself. They do not want you to be safe. Ignoring them for a moment, however, we ought to examine how to select this critical piece of self-defense technology.

    Giving and getting firearms advice can often be an exercise in frustration (ask 10 people, get 10 answers), but if you adhere to the following basic principles in selecting your home-defense firearm, you'll generally be OK:

    Choose only an established firearm in an established caliber. The firearms industry, perhaps more so than other industries, sees a lot of fly-by-night, here-today-and-gone-tomorrow firearms companies. Every so often, a new gun company with a new (or perhaps not so new) product brings its gun to market, hoping to take the gun culture by storm. A few actually succeed and go on to become established brands. (Remember when a new, plastic-framed gun called the "Glock" was introduced to this country?) The same is true of calibers. Few of the new calibers introduced by a manufacturer will become truly popular on the market.

    When you choose your home-defense gun, therefore, make your life easier by choosing a gun whose design and caliber have both been around for some time and that have become reasonably popular. It will be a lot easier for you to buy ammunition, spare parts and magazines, not to mention holsters and other accessories.

    Do not choose an overpowered caliber. Bullets will pass easily through most interior walls and often through exterior walls. For this reason, avoid extremely powerful rounds that will penetrate deeply. A .44 Magnum revolver or a shotgun loaded with deer slugs is probably the wrong choice for home defense, in a very small home or apartment building. You must choose a reasonably effective caliber, of course, but penetration cannot be overlooked when considering the home-defense equation. Don't choose the .44 when a .357 offers excellent ballistics and stopping power, for example.

    Choose a weapon with which you are comfortable, with which you can (and will) practice. A gun that doesn't feel comfortable in your hand (because it feels too big for you, let's say) or that kicks so badly you're afraid to fire and practice with it (online video sites abound with clips of people slapping themselves in the face with guns too powerful for them) is not a good choice for home defense. It will be awkward when you attempt to use it under stress, and you will not be inclined to practice with it.

    Always choose a gun that fits your hand well, that you can carry and lift with ease. A heavy shotgun that is otherwise perfect for home defense, but which you cannot pump properly because of a shoulder injury, is not the right choice. The gun must fit you and must be easy to use and practice with if it is to meet your needs. Once you have chosen your firearm, you are also obligated to train with it (under competent instruction) and to practice with it until you are very comfortable operating it. The worst you do in training is the best you can expect to do in actual application under stress.

    Choose a weapon that can be secured in a readily accessible (but still childproof) fashion. There are a lot of trumped up "statistics" and other pieces of misinformation floating around out there that falsely claim a gun in your home puts your family in greater danger than if you were unarmed. While this is anti-gun propaganda, there is a very real danger presented by any firearm that is not properly secured in the home (especially homes with children of any age). You must NEVER leave a loaded gun unsecured or "hidden" anywhere in the house. If the gun is not on you, it must be locked away in some fashion so that unauthorized use is prevented. The unauthorized user might be a burglar, an apartment complex maintenance man who's let himself into your home with a key, or your very own children. Prevent accidents and misuse by making sure your gun is locked up. There are many security devices that permit fast, ready access to a loaded gun.

    Choose a weapon that is completely legal. There are a lot of gun laws that make very little sense, many of which vary at the state and local levels. When you choose your home-defense gun, make sure nothing about your gun is in any way illegal. Just because you were able to buy the gun and its accessories doesn't mean you're good to go. Certain combinations of firearms and accessories are illegal when the individual components are not.

    If you are forced to use your firearm in self-defense in your home, your actions and the weapon you use will be scrutinized very carefully by law enforcement. If anything you have done is not completely justified, and if your weapon (combined with its accessories) is not completely legal, you will face gravely serious consequences. A little homework beforehand can save you much stress later.

    These guidelines are, arguably, must-follow rules for selecting a home-defense firearm. Keeping a gun in the home is a great benefit in terms of self-defense, but it is also a weighty responsibility. Treat it accordingly ... and make your decisions armed with this information.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/the-gun-you-need-to-protect-your-castle/

    Day of Silence

    By Tom Rhodes, 4/19/12

    The Day of Silence (DOS), is an attack on free speech and yet another reason why the government should get out of the public school business. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), sponsors Friday's "Day of Silence". Their goal is to have thousands of public high school and even middle school students to be silent for an entire day. The protest is to promote GLSEN's socio-political goals. The goal is simple and strait forward, destroy traditional values through the suppression of freedom of speech and religion. The purpose is clear and is not to promote tolerance, but is to undermine traditional beliefs including the eons old belief that homosexuality is immoral.

    GLSEN is not proposing disrupting school instruction time, saying that Students do not have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. This position by GLSEN is the only acceptable position they have. The libertarian position is the toleration of their other positions, not a call for them to be silenced.

    Schools which assert that DOS merely promotes acceptance, never define what the students are accepting. If it is to accept diverse opinions and beliefs then time should be given to those who opinions and beliefs are more traditional. The actions of schools who permit instructional time to be interrupted and degraded by the DOS, are saying that the opinion that homosexuality is moral is more valuable and deserves promotion even if it interupts instructional time than the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. It is a clear moral teaching by the school system. It is clearly appropriate to teach acceptance, if that means teaching that we should treat all people equally and with civility. But is it totally inappropriate to even suggest that students should or must accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral - Legal yes - Moral Not! It is also totally inappropriate to even suggest that students cannot nor should not express strong moral opinions.

    Most Americans take the libertarian stance that people are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. The vast majority of Americans tolerates and in fact is non-judgmental of homosexuality. Like sleeping around with lots of people, smoking dope, or hanging around with lawyers and bankers, most Americans think it is immoral but tolerate and such behavior and are not judgmental about it; Americans clearly don't want laws making such actions illegal. This is the rub, GLSEN and the LGBT community, don't want tolerance, they want acceptance. They want everybody who chooses to engage in homosexual acts to not just be tolerated but not even feel "uncomfortable" about their choice. They want to silence all those who would make statements which morally condemn the practice and make them feel "uncomfortable". They are trying to redefine comfort as safety. Saying that when students make moral statements about homosexuality is the equivalent of discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that those statements of moral conviction should not be allowed for reasons of "safety." GLSEN says the goal is to foster "respect difference within the school community and society as a whole." The truth is that they do not want any respect or tolerance of differences if those differences reflect a moral conviction they don't approve. The promotion and support of the DOS is an example of how GLSEN is actively working at silencing differences they don't approve.

    If school administrations consistently applied the logic and reasoning of GLSEN, then every single statement that disapproved of anybody's activities would be prohibited. There is a clear double standard on freedom of speech. While I and all Libertarians, support the right of GLSEN to promote the DOS and would do nothing to try and make the DOS illegal, this is not acceptance of their position. I strongly disagree with the goals of GLSEN, but I will defend to the death their right to have them, promote them, and say them. The difference is that GLSEN and a large part of the LBGT community don't share the American belief in Freedom of Speech. Not only will they not defend the rights of people to publicly make moral statements they don't approve, they try to suppress speech they don't approve.

    Pro-gay statements and open acts of homosexual affection, makes many people with traditional values feel uncomfortable and bullied to remain silent. GLSEN and other groups like them are bullying those who don't agree with them. Although GLSEN has the right to free speech, anybody in America who values that right should not only not support them but should actively work at counter protesting the DOS; making it clear that silencing ideas you don't agree with is not tolerance; silencing ideas you don't like is un-American; silencing ideas you don't like will is not an acceptable solution.

    The issue here isn't gay rights, nobody is campaigning or calling to make activities between consenting adults illegal. That is not the same as condoning such activities or accepting them as moral and proper. Regardless of how you "feel" about prostitution, it like homosexual activities is an action between consenting adults, which is legal in much of the world including parts of the USA. That doesn't make prostitution a morally or socially acceptable activity. The legal activities of our Secret Service in Columbia should be condemned on moral and social grounds, and those agents should be held accountable to their employer if they in fact broke contractual rules of their employment or contractual obligations to another, like their spouse. If they in fact broke no laws or contracts, then there should be no legal consequences to their actions. They should however be publicly condemned as immoral, unthinking rubes and socially ostracized. Condemnation of immoral activity without legal consequences should be the appropriate response to immoral but legal acts.

    How do you think it makes an alcoholic feel if he hears somebody condemning drunkards? How do you think it makes a adulterer feel when they are exposed on "Cheaters"? How do you think an metabolically challenged person feels when they see pictures of similar people showing rolls of fat at the "People of Wal-Mart" website? Do you think that it makes them feel "uncomfortable"? Do the way drunks, cheaters, and gluttons feel about having their sins exposed either directly or indirectly justifies silencing the speech of others to talk about those sins? If it does then, every environmentalist who denounces owners of BIG SUV's should be silenced because it may make SUV owners feel uncomfortable. Every PETA member should have their speech curtailed because their intolerance for meat-eaters makes meat eaters feel oppressed, harassed, and bullied. Those are absurd examples, but that is exactly what gay rights activists support; suppression of freedom of speech. To sum it up. if I cannot say things that make you feel uncomfortable about your life choices, then you can't say things that make me feel uncomfortable about my life choices.

    Libertarians believe that prostitution, like homosexuality should be legal, that position does not even infer that they are morally or socially acceptable. We believe that freedom and liberty should be protected, even the freedom of speech of those we disagree. The same cannot be said for statists, and especially for a huge part of the LBGT community as represented by GLSEN, who believe that speech they don't like, or that makes them feel "uncomfortable", should be suppressed. Freedom of belief, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are the issue. Those who would suppress the speech of others and label mere speech as harassment or discrimination and attempt to outlaw such speech with significant consequences, just because they don't like that speech are the people we should denounce.

    The solution to GLSEN's campaign to suppress speech they don't like, isn't suppressing GLSEN, but more speech. Make no doubt about it, the DOS is not about protecting gay rights it is about suppressing the free speech rights of those who don't conform to the LBGT agenda. Homosexuality is a sin, just like prostitution, being a drunkard, cursing, gluttony, etc. Because none of these activities involve force of fraud against another or infringe upon another's rights they should be and are generally legal (prostitution is legal so long as you trade dinner, a show, drinks and maybe a nice pair of ear-rings for sex instead of cash). It doesn't mean that people who engage in legal but immoral behavior have the right to suppress the condemnation by others. Just because an action is legal doesn't grant those who engage in that action the right to silence criticism by those who don't.

    Our government run schools should neither support nor suppress the DOS, and should be neutral on student's opinions of legal actions including homosexuality. Supporting either a pro or anti position on homosexual activity, is in fact establishing a religion. Government schools supporting homosexuality and its moral acceptance while suppressing the speech of those who believe that it is a abominable sin and should be condemned, is in effect establishing a religion and is the suppression of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion of others. Forcing texts and curriculum to support homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality is clearly forcing the suppression of religious beliefs and opinions. This is just another example of government schools, and the government in general wanting control over the people, even as to what they think and what ideas they are allowed to express.

    Support of the DOS is supporting suppression of free speech. In protest to this, I urge every parent to encourage their high school student to verbally make as many moral condemnations of the abominable social behavior of homosexuality, during the DOS, even if you just don't care about homosexuality, do it to fight suppression of free speech. Such statements as "Homosexuality is a Sin" are not discriminatory, not harassment, not illegal, and not even uncivil. Such statements are constitutionally protected. To promote free speech have your kid, wear an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo, wear a T-shirt with pictures of armed soldiers carrying big guns at memorial Day, wear a PETA shirt (People Eating Tasty Animals) on World Vegan Day, November 1st, wear a black arm band to protest the wars, wear T-shirts with controversial bible verses any day they can, or even wear T-Shirts with controversial Islamic verses, etc. etc. etc. Freedom of speech is worth defending, say something, wear something, express something somehow that will stir up statists who want their speech heard but not those they oppose, but don't do nothing.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmond Burke

    Wednesday, April 18, 2012

    MAP-21 Scary Law

    By Tom Rhodes 4/18/12

    This is one scary law.S. 1813: MAP-21

    This law is full of over reaching nanny state requirements, and protection for government, but big-brother tracking of you and your car.

    New MPO's cannot be challenged in court, they do have to allow local comments, but no requirement to act on them. Other legal crap like "this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding" make it sound like they want a Metropolitan Planning Orginization(MPO) is not legally accountable for it's actions. They aren't even accountable for doing what the law says they must. "The failure to take into consideration 1 or more of the factors specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not be subject to review by any court under this title, chapter 53 of title 49, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 5 in any matter affecting a metropolitan transportation plan, a transportation improvement program, a project or strategy, or the certification of a planning process."

    It's just Bad Law!

    Scary part is that they are now going to require every car to have a black box SEC. 31406. Mandatory Event Data Recorders-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.

    You may own the data, but the government can get the data if it wants. I think restoring that 1973 VW Bug is more important than ever.

    We have too much government, and even a cursory glance at MAP-21 is scary.

    It's passed the Senate, Contact your Represenative before the house votes and tell them to vote now on MAP-21

    Why is it the Government's Business

    By Tom Rhodes, 4/17/2012

    Why does the government have any say it what is clearly not their business? Consider the whole Rosen debacle where one of Obama's strategist claims that housewives, stay at home mom's, have shouldn't have the right to talk about the economy, and haven't worked a day in their lives. The fact is Obama and his administration, and those whom he consults should have no say in how anybody, including women, chooses to pursue happiness.

    Why does the opinion of an unmarried woman who's never raised kids on a single parent income have a more valid opinion on the economy? The idea that an Obama advisor (now thrown under the bus) even thinks that she or the government has any right to insult a political opponent's wife by ridiculing that woman's life choices, is nothing but overbearing conceit and indicates an hatred for traditional family values. She is free to have and express this opinion, but as an political activist often consulted by Obama's administration, it reflects on the President. This was embarrassing for the President, the Democrats, and blew up in their faces. They never even thought to consider that the government shouldn't have a position how individuals choose to live their lives.

    "Raising children is a lot of work, and we'd venture to say it's more valuable work than, say, lobbying for the music industry or helping BP with its crisis communications, to name two of the highlights of Rosen's career." ~ JAMES TARANTO, WSJ 4/12/2012

    Can you name any work more valuable than raising children. Is closing a business deal more valuable? If so Why? Marriages where women choose to sacrifice a second income to stay at home, raise kids, run a household, are more stable, and have proven repeatedly to be the best method to raise children to be successful productive citizens. Yes there are exceptions, but those are exceptions not the rule. There is nothing more important to society than raising children, period. If it weren't so important why does our government have the following organizations laws and programs: Administration on Children, Youth and Families; Child Care Block Grant; Child Nutrition Act; Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Head Start Act; Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act; Maternal and Child Health Bureau ; Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant; National School Lunch Act; Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education; Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); States Children's Health Insurance Program; Supplemental Security Income for Disabled Children; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; and many more? The fact is our laws, regulations, bureaus, all show that as a society we value raising children, yet this administration is attacking the proven best condition for children to be raised, a stay at home mom. Why?

    Why did the Obama administration manufacture another crisis? What business does the government have in even voicing an opinion on how some women choose to live their lives? The government has far more important business than its current war on traditional society. It appears that the government doesn't want people to be able to pursue happiness if they don't choose to pursue what the government wants. Look at the attacks on Homeschooling, attacks on school choice, attacks on married stay at home moms, attacks on gun owners, attacks on the states, attacks on private property. It appears as though the government actually thinks that it's their business to worry about how hard a woman works or doesn't. Shouldn't people be allowed to make life choices and sacrifices and be allowed to enjoy the perks of those choices?

    The government seems to want power, over every choice every person makes, because they think they know what's best for each individual. Look at retirement; Assume you and another earn the same basic wages, if you choose to live frugally and save for retirement, rather than take vacations, buy a huge house, have a new car every couple years, or otherwise spend all your earnings, the government now wants you to be required to use your savings to support those in old age who chose not to live frugally and save. This is exactly what Means based Social Security means.

    Statists not only want to control the choices we have in how we live our lives, they want to control what we see, hear and say. There has been a rash of new proposed laws to make it illegal to "offend" somebody online. Remember Hillary Clinton's quote on us having "too much free speech" or Former president Clinton saying the people have too much information (he's been reported as recently saying he would prefer that we went back to the big 3 for all our news). Secretary of State Clinton also called for "gatekeepers" to the news. Obama's Cyber security, and other requested or proposed internet regulations are evidence that the Statists want control, not liberty. Obama has consistently tried to use administrative regulations to impose new laws, especially when the laws he wants are not passed by the people's representatives in Congress.

    What business is it of the federal government to know what people say online? What business is it of the federal government to know where people are (Why do we allow our federal government to track our movements through our cell phones without warrants)? What business is it of the federal government to know how much any individual chooses to save for retirement? What business is it of the governments to know how many or what kind of personal arms an individual owns? What business is it of the federal government to even know if you're married? There is truth in the old cliché "Knowledge is Power." It appears as though our government wants more power over all individuals; hence they want more knowledge of every aspect of our lives.

    Obama's goals are statist in nature; they have nothing to do with protecting individuals. He has contempt for the constitutional limits on government. I cannot identify any Obama policy enacted or proposed that enhances any individual's liberty or any that don't increase government control over individual lives. He attacks countries that are no threat to the USA, he attacks individual liberty, he holds in contempt the traditional values of most of America (can you say "Bitter Clinger"), he ignores the rule of law, he promotes and makes exemptions to the law for his political favorites. He is loyal to nobody or anything except increasing government power. Ask Rosen how loyal Obama is to his supporters. Obama and his administration believe that the they know best how every person should live their lives, hence their actions indicate that their clear goals are to increase government power at the expense of your individual liberty, the very definition of a statist.

    Obama clearly is not conservative, liberal, or libertarian. He believes in statism: the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

    Wednesday, April 11, 2012

    So Much for Scientific Consensus

    If anybody in the media or government tells you that there is a consensus that man is causing global warming, and specifically that CO2 is the cause they are liars.

    Full Text of Letter Signed by 49 NASA Astronauts and Scientists

    March 28, 2012


    The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
    NASA Administrator
    NASA Headquarters
    Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

    Dear Charlie,

    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    Sincerely,
    (Attached signatures)

    CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science


    CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center


    Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.


    /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years


    /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years


    /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years


    /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years


    /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years


    /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years


    /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years


    /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years


    /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years


    /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years


    /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years


    /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years


    /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years


    /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years


    /s/ Anita Gale


    /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years


    /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years


    /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years


    /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years


    /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years


    /s/ Thomas J. Harmon


    /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years


    /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years


    /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years


    /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years


    /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years


    /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years


    /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years


    /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years


    /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen


    /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years


    /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years


    /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years


    /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years


    /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years


    /s/ Tom Ohesorge


    /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years


    /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years


    /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years


    /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years


    /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years


    /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years


    /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years


    /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years


    /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years


    /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years


    /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years


    /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years


    /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

    Intentions vs. Results

    By Tom Rhodes, 4/11/12

    Over my expressed liberal views I’ve been accused of being heartless, uncaring, hateful, stupid, and even evil. Yes liberal views, but today they must be named libertarian views, because statists, communists, socialists, progressives, and leftists of all sorts have so distorted the definition of liberal that it no longer means what it once did. The reason statists, those who believe government is the solution to economic and social problems, so hate libertarians, is that they believe libertarians are evil. The reason they do so is based on very emotional criteria not based on anything factual. The reason they so hate those who don’t agree with them is that they have nothing but the best of good intentions in their hearts. The trouble is that the old cliché is true; The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.

    Statists of all type, especially American Democrats, have nothing but the best intentions. They want the best for everybody. They firmly believe that if the people would simply allow the ruling elite, to put the right centrally controlled policies in place that they could alleviate suffering, and everybody would have good shelter, food, healthcare, education, and a quality life. Because in their hearts they know that what they want is good, they believe that anybody who disagrees with must be evil. With no basis in fact, they vilify and disparage those who oppose their methods. Obama has nothing but the best intentions for America at heart; however he is more than willing to use socialistic and fascist methods to achieve what he thinks is best for America.

    American Democrats at heart hate those who oppose them to such an extent that they cannot and will not engage in reasoned conversations. Consider Van Jones recent rant claiming that Libertarians hate "the brown folk, and the gays, and the lesbians, the people with all these piercings." He obviously hasn’t been to PorcFest. No political party has been more supportive of the LGBT community than the Libertarians. His diatribe is not based on actual evidence of bigotry, it is based simply on the fact that he feels in his heart that his intentions are good, and the libertarians managed to cost him his job under Obama, and since his intentions are good the Libertarians must be evil.

    The Pilgrims who first settled North America at Plymouth Rock had the best of intentions, setting up a community where everybody was equal and everybody had equal access to all that the community produced. Despite their good intentions, the actual result was starvation and massive death. After experiencing the failure of communal property, the colony established private property rights, and everybody was allowed to keep all the product of their labor and land, abundance followed and we celebrate it every year with our national holiday, Thanksgiving. With the best of intentions the first pilgrims implementing the idea, that everybody should have equal access to the assets of the community and that everybody receive what they “needed” regardless of their effort or status in the community. The results of the actual implementation were the near annihilation of the first colony at Plymouth. Protecting private property rights, and allowing every individual (or family) to work for their own best interests lead to abundance and charity which could provide for those unable to provide for themselves.

    Evidence of the implementation of central planned economies failure including the massive millions of people killed by their own governments, deprivation, and overall poor quality of life available to those living in communist countries, like the failed USSR, or Cuba are proof that the good intentions of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” in reality do not work. Libertarians look at the historic reality of implementing the rule of law, equal protection under the law, and protection of private property rights. This historic evidence is clear; those societies which protect economic freedom have the overall highest standards of living for more people than other societies. Although not as emotionally satisfying as taking care of everybody, the results of free enterprise with individual responsibility to provide for yourself or suffer the consequences is a better quality of life for everybody, just compare economic freedom to standard of living and the evidence is overwhelming.

    It is with the best of intentions that libertarians want individual freedom, and liberty. Although it may appear cruel to hold individuals responsible for their own well being, and allow them to suffer the consequences of making bad life choices, the results are far from cruel. When individuals are allowed to prosper or perish based on the decisions they make in life, and when government is established to protect each individuals rights from force of fraud of others, overall more people have a better quality of life. The results are manifest and self evident. Tribalism, feudalism, communism, socialism, and fascism, regardless of the intentions of those who implement those policies all have the same results, results that have been the historic norm for mankind throughout all of history; relative richness and luxury for the ruling elite, and poverty and toil and oppression for the masses.

    How about this, for every law created include a sunset clause based on time and actual results of all laws compared to their intended purpose. This way whether the law is liberal or libertarian if it fails to achieve the desired results it is automatically ended. Let’s say we create a federal law that makes texting while driving illegal, but we include a provision that says if after 5 years the number of auto accidents hasn’t decreased by 5% then we accept this law limiting peoples voluntary action did not achieve the desired results so is null and void. This way laws could be enacted with the caveat that if they failed to reach the intended results would be automatically rescinded. This would allow easier passage of many laws and would clearly reduce laws and regulations that prove to be ineffective.

    Apply this logic to Obamacare. The good intentions of Obamacare are that nobody be destroyed financially because of a medical problem, and that all people have the ability to pay for quality medical care. These are good and noble intentions. How would you feel if the following were added to the Obamacare legislation? “If after 10 years, the number of uninsured people in the USA has not been reduced by 50% and overall health care costs have not been reduced by 5% the Affordable Patient Care Act will not have reached its minimum desired results and proven to be ineffective legislation thus is null and void.” If the statists and Obama are right and Obamacare is good legislation, then the results would prove its efficacy, and it would remain law. However if Obamacare proves to be ineffective, this would require Congress to then look at what worked and didn’t work in Obamacare and either craft new legislation or abandon it, both of which would be good things if Obamacare fails to reach its stated and desired results. This would allow the good intentions of Obamacare to be considered, and if proven effective retained, but dismissed if the actual results are not realized.

    Let’s back-fit this idea to an older law, specifically handgun law in Washington DC. If in 1976 when handgun ownership in DC was made effectively illegal, the following provision was included, “The purpose of this law is to reduce violent crime associated with handguns. If after 7 years the murder rate and violent crime committed with hand guns hasn’t been reduced by 25% this law will have shown not to reach its intended results and is therefore null and void.” in 1983 the DC handgun ban would have automatically been rescinded, and there would have been no reason for the Heller case to even exist. Now whether liberals like it or not, there is Supreme Court precedence that clearly states that owning a handgun for self defense is a constitutionally protected individual right. The ability of the left to pass “reasonable” handgun legislation is now seriously curtailed. If automatic sunset provisions that retire all laws, including firearm laws, were enacted based on achieving actual results, both sides of the isle would have an easier time passing laws, and the people would more readily accept laws as those which are proven ineffective would automatically go away.

    If the true intentions of statists are as they claim, and they believe that the laws they want will work, then this idea should pose no problem and have no opposition. If however the goal is not as they claim, but the goal is to expand government increase central control over all people, then they will fight this idea.

    Statists and the left, cannot accept that those who oppose them have good intentions. They however refuse to look at actual results, to them intentions and emotions trump facts. Results not intentions should be the measure of what is acceptable, especially when it comes to laws. Libertarians want economic and social freedom with the best of intentions, the difference is that we look at and consider actual results not just the emotional feeling of doing something good. Claiming those that oppose you are filled with hate, or have evil, bad, or greedy intentions only shows that someone is narrow minded and closed to reasoned debate.

    Tuesday, April 10, 2012

    Hubris thy name is Obama

    By Tom Rhodes 4/10/12
    Obama care was passed by the slimmest of margins, with unprecedented increase in government power. After the SCOTUS oral arguments on Obamacare, President Obama shot across the bow of the Justices:
    "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

    The vote was 219-214 in the House, and 60-39 in the Senate. Not what you can truthfully call a strong majority, especially when you consider that the senate would have been filibustered if it weren’t for the fact that 4 of the democrat senators that voted for Obamacare were not democratically elected but were in fact appointed replacements to the senate for Obama and other senators who are joined his cabinet. Former Democrat, Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich is going to prison for corruption related to selling off Obama’s Senate seat. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that saying that Obamacare passed with “a strong majority of a democratically elected” senate is stretching the truth quite a bit. To even imply otherwise is an overt act of hubris.

    Obama saying that it is “Judicial Activism” to overturn Obamacare on constitutional grounds, that it is thwarting the will of the people through their democratically elected Congress has to be disingenuous. As Ken Blackwell points out, another modern era law that survived judicial review, was passed by the Democrat controlled house 342-67 and Democrat controlled Senate 85-14, and signed into law by a Democrat President in 1984, Obama calls “Unconstitutional.” This law when put up to referendum, even in liberal California, passes with a huge majority. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act is the will of the people. But somehow DOMA is “unconstitutional” while Obamacare is; polls show 2/3rds of the people want Obamacare repealed; a majority of States are suing the US Government over its implementation; and it grants unprecedented power with a requirement that all people take some affirmative action and purchase a commercial product just for being alive, and Obama scolds the Supreme Court of the United States over its constitutionality and Obamacare being the will of the people. Hubris, thy name is Obama.

    Obama as a professor of constitutional law, clearly knows what is and isn’t constitutional, he quite simply doesn’t want or believe that the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Obama appears to be actively working to create administrative tyranny to bypass the separation of powers and constitutional limits on the federal government. As he infamously said he has problems with the constitution, doesn’t like the limits, doesn’t like the fact that it doesn’t “obligate” the government to “do” certain things, and limits what he as president can “get done.” Hubris, thy name is Obama.

    Obama’s hubris, and willingness to bypass the rule of law is self evident. Consider his almost routine use of the military in defiance of the War Powers Act, or his extortion of BP over the gulf oil spill with no legal authority. There is no question that BP should have been held accountable for the damages they caused in and around the Gulf of Mexico; we have laws for that sort of thing. What legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business to make restitution? We have bankruptcy laws, by what legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business and individuals to accept 30 cents on the dollar for secured credit which legally have precedence in bankruptcy, while giving unsecured creditors like the UAW far more generous terms? Hubris thy name is Obama.

    Obama and statists, who think like him, have the hubris to think that they know what is best for every person, and that they should have the power and authority to dictate how people should live. From what we eat, to what we are allowed to hear or watch on TV and Radio, to what medical services you are allowed to use, they want to regulate every aspect of every person’s life. Ignoring the repeated failures of socialism, from the first Pilgrims to the US to fall of the USSR, Obama and statists continue ignore the historical evidence that the rule of law and the protection of private property rights lead to the highest standard of living and most freedom and liberty for more people than any other economic system in the history of man. Obama exercise extreme hubris, thinking that he and his ilk know better and can centrally control an economy, can centrally control what technologies are developed and succeed, can centrally control what people learn, all through the redistribution of labor. Obama thinks that he can decide, and should have the power to dictate at exactly what point you have enough. Obama is typical of statists, regardless of what philosophy or rhetoric they use to describe their agenda, no matter where in the world they attempt to implement their agenda, their agenda is always the same, preempting the decisions of individuals and regimenting their lives. Hubris thy name is Obama.

    Saturday, April 7, 2012

    The Simple Difference

    By Tom Rhodes 4/6/2012

    When a libertarian hears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say an NPR Editorial or a Strasburg Waltz, he turns the channel; exercising free will and choosing not to listen to what they want without infringing on other peoples free choice to listen. When a Liberal rears something on the radio he doesn’t like, say a Rush Editorial or a Lee Greenwood moldy oldy they try to create a law like the “Fairness Doctrine” or take some other actions so that nobody has the choice to listen to what liberals don’t want to hear.

    The difference is simple and clear. Liberals don’t want people to be allowed to exercise free will if people don’t exercise freedom in a way liberals don’t like.

    This can be seen in a huge variety of liberal positions. Take education, liberals are against any programs that actually offer parents choices in how their children are educated. They are anti-voucher, anti-charter schools, and anti-homeschooling. They simply don’t want people to have the freedom to choose what they think is best for their children because they want control and allowing people freedom means that the government doesn’t have control.

    Consider something as simple as housing. Liberals and totalitarians worldwide are trying to force “sustainable” development rules on the world. They want concentrations of people renting, they do not want “sprawl” it doesn’t matter what people freely want to choose for themselves. Private property, and the free choice of people to have and use private property as they see fit is not even a consideration of liberals. They don’t want to allow individuals to exercise free will, but instead want some ruling elite to determine what is best and dictate how to live. Freedom of individuals to live as they see fit isn’t even considered. In fact they have such disdain for individual that they routinely claim that “most” people aren’t smart enough to make decisions for themselves.

    Those who believe in liberty, libertarians, also know that with the exercise of free will comes the responsibility to live with the results of your choices. This is why liberals hate liberty; it has associated responsibility. They don’t want themselves or others to be responsible for the consequences of free will. Health care is a perfect example, they do not want people to have to be responsible for their life choices, and want those who make responsible choices to have to pay and care for those who don’t. They call it wealth redistribution, but it is a simple matter of not wanting anybody to suffer the consequences of exercising free will. They think that somebody who smokes, over eats, and never exercises should have the same affordable health care as somebody who doesn’t smoke, exercises regularly, and is careful about what they eat.

    This is also why they are generally anti-Christian. Christianity is at its heart the exercise of free will. Christians believe that there is only one way, and that everybody has free will to choose or not choose the path to salvation. Liberals hate the fact that the exercise of free will and making a bad choice means eternal damnation. They hate free will, because some people might not make the right choice. The ultimate expression of freedom is in Christianity, where a person can be free from the guilt and punishment of a lifetime of sins by simply exercising free will. Of course that acknowledges the responsibility for accepting the consequences of that decision. Exercising free will has consequences, liberals have some child like idea that nobody should suffer for anything, and that nobody should have to live with the consequences of making bad choices, hence they hate free will and liberty.

    In Wyoming officials admitted that they infringed upon the first amendment rights of a Christian group. Their solution, rather than stop discriminating against one view point, is to silence all viewpoints. Rather than tolerate the exercise of expression that they don’t like, they choose to install rules that mean nobody is allowed to communicate any ideas. (LINK)

    It is so bad that in the people’s republic of Massachusetts school officials went so far as to change the words of Lee Greenwood’s 1984 song “God Bless the USA,” that little kids would be singing. Once the outcry from the general public, and Greenwood exercised his copyrights telling them that they couldn’t take God out of his song because as he said, "it’s the most important part", the liberal government types in Massachusetts took the predicted mode and just canceling the entire concert.

    The simple difference between liberals and libertarians is tolerance. Liberals do not and will not tolerate any ideas or even the expression of ideas they don’t like, their actions and words clearly reflect this. Go look at or join in some political discussion groups on Facebook, you will clearly see that it is liberals that call for the removal of those they don’t agree, or when liberal government types run a discussion group they are the first to remove people whose ideas they don’t like. The actual evidence is clear, liberal government types cannot stand and don’t tolerate ideas they don’t like, ideas like free will, and liberty.

    Now do you want people whose actions repeatedly demonstrate that that believe that is preferable to silence everybody than allow expressions they don’t agree, making your laws? Voting for a liberal government type that is exactly what you get. Be the liberal government type named Obama, or Romney, voting for them is a vote to restrict your rights and a vote against tolerance.

    Thursday, April 5, 2012

    Scientific Skepticism, A Religious Experience

    By Tom Rhodes 4/5/2012

    Last week a study in the American Sociological Review by Gordon Gauchat claims there has been, in the past four decades, a dramatic decline in churchgoers’ faith in science since around 1970. Sociology as a science is notoriously soft, lacking in rigor, and has produced such failed ideas as eugenics. Be that as it may it does offer insight.



    The modern scientific method was fundamentally codified by religious men (mostly Christians) in order to better understand God’s creation. Ever hear of the phrase “doubting Thomas?” It was coined because of nature of the disciple Thomas. Skepticism is definitely a Christian trait.

    Consider Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), now renamed Climate Change. Over the past four decades, scientists have told us to prepare for an upcoming ice age and warned of catastrophic global warming. Many scientists and government types trying to use scares of dramatic climate change as a means to institute tyrannical government controls on the everyday lives of the average person. At the same time scientists like Professor Richard Linden of MIT, and thousands of others clearly say that there is no scientific evidence of man causing harmful climate change.

    Mike Hulme is a high-ranking professor at the University of East Anglia who has done substantial work and is influential with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is of course the same University of East Anglia which is infamous for the Climate-gate emails, where “scientists” were exposed hiding and suppressing data, and colluding against any whose research didn’t support the pre-conceived conclusions that AGW is valid. These emails noted that it was more important to protect the message of AGW than expose the truth revealed by the science.

    Professors Hulme explains from the concluding chapter his book, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”

    People looking for honesty and abject truth are now skeptical of the “science” presented by proponents of Global Warming theory. Being caught in lies, and watching complete double standards as to who should and shouldn’t follow new draconian environmental laws have left many skeptical. This is a more common trait in people of faith in America. How dare people of faith, who believe that there is actual truth, be skeptical of scientists who openly claim that the idea of Climate Change being used as a method to achieve political, social, economic, and personal projects is more important than the science and problems to be solved.

    This new attitude by scientists like Hulme of demanding the trust of the people without evidence, in the face of them hiding evidence, and in their own words saying the evidence, facts, and science isn’t as important as the political and social goals is a good reason that the religious are skeptic. Any good scientist should be a Doubting Thomas, why is that skepticism from outside the “scientific” community now seen as irrational.

    Doubting Thomas is someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; in other words, a skeptic. This phrase is coined based on based on the Biblical story of Christ’s Apostle, Thomas. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, doubted Jesus' resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced (John 20:24-29). Skepticism has a long tradition in Christianity, more importantly, scientific skepticism is rooted in a methodology for looking at what God crated, a methodology developed by great religious men of the past: The Scientific Method.

    Roger Bacon (1214–1294), is credited with first documenting the scientific method, based on the writings of Muslim scientists, he described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. But it is Galileo (1564–1642) who is considered the father of the Scientific Method in modern culture. According to an old 1970 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, “Even while Bacon was philosophizing, the true method was being practiced by Galileo, who, with a combination of observation, hypothesis, mathematical deduction and confirmatory experiment founded the science of dynamics.”

    Scientists are now asking for unqualified faith in their findings and recommendations, not skepticism facts, and truth. That sounds more like religion than science. Gauchat’s work seems to fly in the face of famous sociologist Robert K. Merton who wrote, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”

    Wednesday, April 4, 2012

    Home Brewed Racism


    By Tom Rhodes, 4/4/20125

    All the talk and accusations of racism concerning Trayvan, when it is now clear that to make this look like a racist event; a Hispanic man is labeled as white; reliance on what have now been confirmed as doctored both audio and video to publicly convict Zimmerman regardless of the facts (he may be guilty but the facts are not all out); Calls for inquiry and seeking the truth are labeled as racist; total disregard for any evidence that doesn’t meet pre-conceived conclusions; and what appears to be the total disregard for much more heinous racist hate crimes. This is a case of home brewed racism, not real organic racism.

    Have you heard about Allen Coon, the 13-year-old white kid in Kansas City, soaked in gasoline and set on fire while the two young black men yelled, “You get what you deserve, white boy!”? Wasn’t a headline story on NPR, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. Why no cry for Sharpton and Jackson to fly off to Kansas City and admonish the local community, and to insist on the Kansas City Police to arrest those clearly racist assailants? Why didn’t the President call for some soul searching as to why black teenagers would do this to a white boy? The sad evil truth that nobody is allowed to say is that a disproportionate amount of black/white hate crimes is not white’s attacking blacks, but blacks attacking whites. Worse yet is the sad fact is that young black men are murdered far more often than any other group in our country, not by whites but by other black men. Want some very scary but we can’t talk about information; if you exclude black on black murders, the US murder rate is not any higher than other industrialized western nations.

    If you really want to address racism then we need to address two issues, the drug war and the fact that 3 of every 4 black babies is born to an unwed mother. The war on drugs is disproportionately applied to blacks, and once a person has a criminal record you can “legally” discriminate against them. It’s not racist to refuse to hire somebody with a “criminal” record. The racism was creating and maintaining laws which make certain activities illegal based on ancient cultural preferences. In America we’ve got home brewed racism based on old cultural preferences for brew over plants.

    People use mind altering drugs, always have always will. There is no scientific ground to claim that alcohol is less dangerous than pot or coca leaves, and the concentration of either through processing like distillation makes both sources of mind altering substances far more dangerous. Although virtually all cultures use both, the generally preferred mind altering substance of whites is alcohol, of minorities it has been coca and pot. The reason is anthropologically sound, availability of mind altering substances in the ancient historic dwelling places lead to cultural preferences. European heritage lead to a preference for fermented fruits, grain, etc. because that is what was easiest to acquire. Asian, African, and western hemisphere natives have a preference for smoked or ingested plant leafs, because that is what was easiest to acquire. It is easy to conclude that making leaf and flower based mind alter substances illegal, while keeping fruit, berry, and grain fermentation products legal is a subtle but functional method to keep Eurocentric racism acceptable. The idea that it is criminal to use one natural based mind altering substance like pot, while it is socially acceptable (and expected in powerful social circles) to use other mind altering substances like wine, is patently absurd.

    Being a single parent is less than ideal, it is not desirable, and not the best way to raise children. Right now 3 of every 4 black babies is born to an unwed mother; Why? The answer is easy and the same; the racist war on drugs. Black women don’t have a socially acceptable pool of black men to marry who are not criminals. The social standard to marry morally upright and “good” man is greatly hindered by the fact that a huge percentage of black males are “criminals.” Prohibition resulted in Al Capone, and massive gang warfare, police corruption, murder and made normal honest people criminals. The war on drugs does exactly the same thing, but because it is targeted to minorities it provides racists a socially acceptable method to discriminate, the result is massive numbers of young black men permanently labeled as criminals, making them unsuitable for other employment and diminishing their standing as marriage material. No woman wants to marry a man who spent his teens and 20’s in and out of jail rather than developing skills that would make him a good provider, father, and husband. End the war on drugs, and the result will be a significant decrease in unwed mothers in the communities it affects.

    The fact is that racism, the real lynching murdering racism of the past in the USA is all but gone. There are very rare events where some racist slime murders those whom they hate, but it is very very rare and is not tolerated by anybody of any race. The reality is that real racist organizations like the KKK and the Black Panthers are pretty much powerless and a mostly good for late night joke material. The vast majority of Americans see people like Sharpton and Jackson as opportunist race baiters. The massive fraudulent communications by the press to try and make Trayvan/Zimmerman racist issue which as more evidence is exposed, it clearly isn’t, is only hurting race relations and not productive. Failure to recognize that our current laws which criminalize eon’s old behavior based on cultural preferences are racist in nature and need to be eliminated is a far bigger problem. Since the powers of big government have found that the war on drugs is profitable (for government), can be used to control a significant portion of the population, increases government power, and allows discrimination against “criminals,” don’t expect any real changes anytime soon.

    This is Legal:




    This is not:




    Why?

    The solution is simple, liberty. Drug laws are very anti-liberty, they imply that the government can and should control what kind of natural mind altering products you choose to use. The absurdity and double standard are appalling. My hobby, brewing, allows me to make up 200 gallons of primo-hooch every year. Being of European decent, I prefer hard apple cider to other drugs. My latest, “Drunken Moose Mead,” was brewed from local honey and store bought apple juice right in my kitchen, not only does it tastes great but with a 22% alcohol content, it produces a potent buzz. Why is this legal, socially and culturally acceptable, yet gardening plants in the back yard, or window box that when used produce a similar mind altering state a crime? The reason is that beer and wine making are a traditional European “Craft” and growing pot, coca or poppy plants is a third world criminal “enterprise.” That is just racist and sick. I don’t plan to stop brewing, but will work to make all kinds of gardening legal. Home brew is legal, home grown isn’t, that has to change.

    President Obama Confirms He's a Liar

    By Tom Rhodes, 4/4/2012

    Following the oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning Obama care, president Obama sent this shot across the bow of the Justices:

    "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

    Obviously, our judicial branch is taking Obama's words seriously. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith was very stern suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law. Smith is hearing a different lawsuit against Obamacare by physician-owned hospitals. CBS reports that on Monday, this three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has in direct response to the president's challenge, ordered the Justice Department to submit a three page paper by Thursday on whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

    For over 200 years the SCOTUS has regularly overturned laws passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. As a constitutional scholar that he claims to be and his education and teaching credentials indicate, there can only be one explanation for that quote from President Obama. Obama is a purposeful teller of falsehoods.

    We'll hear backpedaling and trite explanations, but the foregone conclusion is Obama knowingly told complete falsehood. By simple definition he has quite simply confirmed a fact, he is a liar, and not trustworthy.

    Monday, April 2, 2012

    Why Obama Lawyers couldn’t answer Constitutional Questions

    By Tom Rhodes 4/2/2012


    Last week’s historic 3 day Supreme Court debate on Obamacare made one thing abundantly clear. The Obama administration is unable to answer basic constitutional questions and does not want nor consider the fact that there are limits on what the Government is allowed to do. Whether a liberal or conservative justice asked the basic question: If Congress can do this, what can't it do? Obama’s lawyers had no reasonable answer. Fundamentally, Obama and his administration, do not grasp liberty and freedom and the basis for the American experiment in self-rule.

    Obama’s sole case was that because everybody might unexpectedly need healthcare the government has the right to force everybody to purchase insurance. When asked to compare that with a certainty, Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?" The Obama lawyer stammered and tried to equivocate but offered no coherent retort.

    Obama and the liberal left want the government to control the people, but our pesky constitution keep making it difficult. Little questions like since health care is regulated by the states, since you cannot purchase health insurance across state lines, and since patients and doctors services are exchanged within a state, how forcing all people to purchase health insurance is regulating interstate commerce? Is a question bounced around but not answered by Obama’s lawyers.

    SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: “I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court’s cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?”

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: “But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

    And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

    Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America. That is exactly what he is trying to do, to grant government the authority and right to force the people to purchase services and take actions that the government deems prudent, regardless of the individual’s liberty.

    Justice Kennedy said it very well, the fact is there is no government enforced “obligation to one another.” The fact is that there is not a legally “shared responsibility” for our fellow citizens. In a free society everybody is responsible for themselves. We do have a moral obligation to voluntarily take care of each other, this is charity. Charity is voluntary, with our own time and money give of our own volition. Liberals as repeated studies have demonstrated, give embarrassingly little to charity, but are quite fond of forcing others to provide charity.

    Constitutionally there are limits to the federal government. That doesn’t sit well with liberal utopian fantasy. They have no answer when asked, “If the government can do that, what can it do?” They accept no limits to the government. The fundamental problem is far deeper. The culture of America is no longer based on any form of democratic control. The ruling elite simply choose to ignore the plain will of the people.

    The traditions and intellectual rigor that created our constitution, a period of time know as the “Enlightenment,” resulted in such clear and succinct ideas as expressed in the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The idea that the people, not some ruling elite, can and should govern themselves lived for about a century. That idea is dead, there is not a liberal out there would be willing to let somebody make a life decision that government doesn’t approve and benefit or suffer the effects of that decision. Make a decision that earns wealth, and the government has a right to that wealth; make a decision that makes you poor, and the government will supply you with your needs. Self governing, self ownership, and individual responsibility are ideas that created the greatest nation the world ever saw, with the highest standard of living for more people than ever before. These concepts are foreign to Obama and his administration.

    The writings of Locke, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and even Newton, all added to the conditions that resulted a society like the world had never known. The result was rather than the historic norm for all of history, which a few ruling elite live in relative luxury and control the masses living in abject poverty but the establishment of what is now know as the middle class. Over the past 100 years, this tradition of self rule has been diluted to a point that most people don’t even understand it. For a while new Americans from Europe, Russia, and even Asia, appeared to assimilate into the self-governing culture of the USA. The addition of millions of people who come from cultures that don’t even have a word in their languages to describe such basic principles as earning completely diluted the very principles upon which the USA was built.

    Although it has taken a century, the melting pot has proven to be a myth not a fact. Rather than take the responsibilities and risks that accompany freedom and liberty, the multi-cultural experiment has resulted in old feudal ( or possibly tribal) thinking supplanting the foundational basis for self-rule. The very idea that because some people won’t (or can’t) make good life choices, that some ruling elite must take care of everybody cradle to grave is the antithesis of the foundational principles of the USA. Masses of immigrants have ignored the founding principles of our former Republic, and imposed the traditions, mores and attitudes of their cultures on the USA.

    When the concept that people earn, not win, are not granted, but earn property, based upon free trade of their labor and capital, is not accepted as a viable concept, it is plain that the USA is going the way of the Roman Empire and is destined to be frayed. The historically brief period of time where liberty and freedom was allowed to prosper is over. Libertarianism, or classic liberalism, has been killed by multiculturalism; it was inevitable as the “live and let live” attitude associated with libertarianism, the very freedom and liberty our society was based, lead to tolerance of other cultures regardless of their compatibility with self-rule.

    The reason Obama’s lawyers couldn’t answer basic constitutional questions, is culturally the very idea of self-ownership, self-rule, and the associated responsibility that accompany liberty are such foreign concepts that the Obama administration doesn’t even understand the question.

    Obama and his administration believe that the ruling elite have the authority to dictate to individuals what they must purchase, and do not accept that people are free to pursue life as they see fit. This is the fundamental change Obama promised and is attempting to enact. The very idea that government is limited, especially from doing “good,” is culturally beyond his and his administration’s understanding. Obama’s “Bitter, Clinging” comments and his often repeated frustration with the constitution, speak clearly that he does not understand a culture of self-rule, self-ownership, and liberty, and does not believe that people should be free.

    The very fact that the individual mandate in Obamacare is being considered constitutional by any of our Supreme Courte Justices, is ample evidence that the ideas, culture, and thinking that created our nation are gone; no longer are all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and no longer do we consider the fact that our government was created to secure these rights, instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, instead the government is some ruling elite with the power and authority to mandate what actions individuals must take, as it assumes the responsibility for every person in exchange for their liberty.