By Tom Rhodes, 12/24/2013
It looks like the ruling elite have destroyed the traditional rationale for marriage and are effectively ending heterogamy from being the only legal form. The sanctioning of homogamy is leading to legalized polygamy. I believe the reason has nothing to do with “marriage” and everything to do with creating a giant tax loophole, and it’s real.
Real, as in real property or real estate or real amounts of money. Say you bought a house and sat on it for a while and got lucky. You paid $50K and it now sells for $250K. The problem is when you sell it Uncle Sam is going to try and take $36K of your profit as “gains.” To most of America that’s a hefty chunk of change. Most of America also sees that the government no longer plays by the rules, so we are no longer obligated to play by the rules. In order to save $36K, you “marry” the purchaser (now referred to as spouse), open a joint “savings” account where the new “spouse” deposits $250K. Soon after you find that you and the new spouse are incompatible and get an uncontested “divorce.” In the terms of the divorce your new “spouse” (now the Ex) gets the house and you get the joint “savings” There you go bada-boom-bada-bing for less than $2K in legal fees house is sold and there are zero taxes paid. A pain in the ass with a bit of paperwork, but for over $30K worth the effort.
Most everyday people won’t do this, but. . . . If instead of a $250K house, consider a megabuck business, the owner “marries”, and soon after “divorces.” In the divorce he "loses" the business to the spouse, but gets to keep the millions in their joint savings. Bada-boom-bada-bing mega-million dollar business transferred and massive taxes avoided. Ending traditional marriage and the rationale for it, is going to open a huge “loophole” in the legal system and dramatically change the meaning of “mergers” and “acquisitions”. If you want to move millions of dollars without the IRS getting their hands on it, “marriage” and “uncontested divorce” will be the solution.
Soon you’ll see parents “marrying” their children then “divorcing” to avoid inheritance taxes. Imagine being a consultant, you “marry” your client, do the work as agreed on in the “pre-nup”, after the work is complete you and your spouse file an “uncontested divorce” and go your separate ways, as part of the “divorce agreement” you get to keep the contents of your “joint savings.” Bada-boom-bada-bing you complete a big buck consulting contract and have ZERO tax liability, report zero income, even get an “earned income” tax credit, SNAP and free health care. Once marriage is viable between any consenting adults and is devoid of it’s traditional purpose the possibilities to avoid the IRS arm of Uncle Sam are endless.
Every new law has unintended consequences, the unintended consequences of divorcing marriage from the creation of a traditional family are plainly obvious. Marriage isn’t about “love.” The legal and other benefits of marriage exist to protect children and provide the what has historically proven to be the best environment to raise our progeny, legally binding a man and woman together and obligating them to provide and protect their children, and granting those children the legal transfer of family wealth without government confiscation. Redefine marriage to include any “loving relationship” and taking away the rationale for marriage, opens up a whole can of worms most people haven't considered. Use the old adage and "follow the money."
The tax abuses of “marriage” as I’ve described will soon be a reality. Once the marriage loophole in taxation is exposed and abused it will have to be closed. Expect the law to change and marriage will no longer offer the tax “loophole” it does now. When grandpa dies, granny is going to lose the house because she won’t be able to afford the capital gains tax. The excuse of granting married people tax free inheritance, and tax free splitting of shared assets is going to be taken away by the ruling elite, who will use abuse of “marriage” and “divorce” law as the excuse to further confiscate our wealth. Use the old adage and "follow the money." The whole “gay marriage” thing is a red herring, a means for the ruling elite to eliminate a method of transferring wealth without their getting their hands on it.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny
By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2013
Those who embrace liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms suffer from the delusion that the ruling elite know better how every person should live. This is a fantasy or more rationally a logical fallacy of category error. They actually believe that the state "loves" you and should be the parent, god, tribal elder, city council, uncle, teacher, and provider for every person in society. What's worse is they believe that the state can be all things to all people. They believe that because some people don't make the life choices that they think are best, the state should have the authority to force people to do what's "right" for their own good. C.S. Lewis described this phenomenon.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis
For your own good liberals want to:
Control where you go to school
Regulate your work
Regulate your play
Control what doctor you can see
Control what treatments your doctor can prescribe
Decide when you retire
Decide how much money you can keep when you retire
Decide how you must save and invest for retirement
Decide if when you've made enough money
Decide what ideas can be taught in school
Decide what religious beliefs you must tolerate
Decide what religious beliefs you must reject
Control Charities
Control your choice of transportation
Control you where you live
Dictate what you can and can't eat
For the state to provide for the people, and to protect the people, and to control people from making bad choices takes money. The reality of TANSTAAFL means that the state must have massive amounts of money. They embrace the idea that has served foundational for the last centuries most brutal regimes; the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.
They believe they know what's best for you and know how other people should life. The issue isn't that they live how they want to live, they want to force everybody to live how they want to live.
They like gay marriage therefore everyone must be forced to like gay marriage.
They hate guns, therefore nobody should be allowed to own guns.
They like Sesame Street, therefore everybody should pay for Sesame Street.
They prefer vertical urban life styles therefore in the name of "sustainability" everybody should be forced to live in more urban areas.
They hate the rich, therefore nobody should be rich.
They like NPR, therefore everybody should pay for NPR.
They like abortion, therefore everybody should pay for their abortions.
The problem with leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever left leaning -ists you want to name, they firmly believe that because what they want is good, you shouldn't have the choice not do what they believe is good. They believe that if you don't believe like them then you are either too stupid to understand the "goodness" of their beliefs or you are evil. In either case, your stupidity or evil nature justifies them forcing you to do as they believe "for your own good" or "for the good of society." They literally hunger to control those who they believe are evil, or not smart enough to understand the goodness of their beliefs.
Because liberals with all their hart want what's best for everybody, want nobody to ever suffer, and have the best of intentions, they hate the free market. The free market allows people to choose what they want, not what progressives think is best for them. Emotionally at a deep caring and loving level, they know that "if only" people would do as they think is right everybody would be better. Liberal thinking works on some magical "utopian" level, devoid of reality or understanding of human nature. They actually believe that because some people are too stupid or are evil they don't always make "good" choices, therefore they, the ruling elite, who know better how everybody should live, should have the authority to force "good" choices on everybody.
Liberals also believe that if somebody makes a mistake, to avoid acute suffering that everybody should pay for that mistake that way the consequences of a mistake are shared and nobody suffers too much. If an individual chooses not to make the best of the education offered, and chooses to have children without a means of support, rather than see that person or the children suffer, everybody should have to pay to house, feed, clothe, and care for them. If a city, raises its taxes to a point most businesses, and virtually all of the middle and upper class of people move to less onerous parts of the country, while giving huge extensive pay and retirement packages to city workers, resulting in bankruptcy, like Detroit, rather than the people of that city and its creditors suffering the consequences of those mistakes in leadership, liberals believe EVERYBODY must pay to bail them out. If a state does the same thing and goes billions into debt, and creates an environment where there are more people on welfare than working, like California, liberals believe that rather than let the people of California suffer the consequences of their elected leaders mistakes, the people of Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and all the other states where the people have forced state governments to have balanced budgets must help pay for California, Illinois, and New York's mistakes.
Liberalism, and the oppressive tyranny it imposes forces one-size-fits-all actions in a world where the people have more and more choices every day. Let's face it, Amazon.com completes more transactions with a vaster variety of products every minute, than the recently upgraded and "fixed" one-size-fits-all Healthcare.gov has ever been able to complete in a day. Healthcare.gov is a massive mistake created for "your own good" that everybody must pay for. It is tyranny in action for your own good.
The very idea that because some people if given the freedom to make life choices might not make the wisest choices, the state should have the authority to force people to accept limits on those choices is the underlying premise of modern liberals. Once accepting that premise, they extrapolate that to put the responsibility for the consequences on the state, and as such it has the authority to force those who exercise what freedom it allows profitably to pay for the unwise life choices of everyone else. Liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms are a non-functional, authoritative, overbearing philosophy that depends on tyranny to implement and is completely out of step with the modern world and the very idea of liberty.
Liberal ideas cannot be implemented without force, as such most are immoral. Simply put Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny
Those who embrace liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms suffer from the delusion that the ruling elite know better how every person should live. This is a fantasy or more rationally a logical fallacy of category error. They actually believe that the state "loves" you and should be the parent, god, tribal elder, city council, uncle, teacher, and provider for every person in society. What's worse is they believe that the state can be all things to all people. They believe that because some people don't make the life choices that they think are best, the state should have the authority to force people to do what's "right" for their own good. C.S. Lewis described this phenomenon.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis
For your own good liberals want to:
For the state to provide for the people, and to protect the people, and to control people from making bad choices takes money. The reality of TANSTAAFL means that the state must have massive amounts of money. They embrace the idea that has served foundational for the last centuries most brutal regimes; the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.
They believe they know what's best for you and know how other people should life. The issue isn't that they live how they want to live, they want to force everybody to live how they want to live.
The problem with leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever left leaning -ists you want to name, they firmly believe that because what they want is good, you shouldn't have the choice not do what they believe is good. They believe that if you don't believe like them then you are either too stupid to understand the "goodness" of their beliefs or you are evil. In either case, your stupidity or evil nature justifies them forcing you to do as they believe "for your own good" or "for the good of society." They literally hunger to control those who they believe are evil, or not smart enough to understand the goodness of their beliefs.
Because liberals with all their hart want what's best for everybody, want nobody to ever suffer, and have the best of intentions, they hate the free market. The free market allows people to choose what they want, not what progressives think is best for them. Emotionally at a deep caring and loving level, they know that "if only" people would do as they think is right everybody would be better. Liberal thinking works on some magical "utopian" level, devoid of reality or understanding of human nature. They actually believe that because some people are too stupid or are evil they don't always make "good" choices, therefore they, the ruling elite, who know better how everybody should live, should have the authority to force "good" choices on everybody.
Liberals also believe that if somebody makes a mistake, to avoid acute suffering that everybody should pay for that mistake that way the consequences of a mistake are shared and nobody suffers too much. If an individual chooses not to make the best of the education offered, and chooses to have children without a means of support, rather than see that person or the children suffer, everybody should have to pay to house, feed, clothe, and care for them. If a city, raises its taxes to a point most businesses, and virtually all of the middle and upper class of people move to less onerous parts of the country, while giving huge extensive pay and retirement packages to city workers, resulting in bankruptcy, like Detroit, rather than the people of that city and its creditors suffering the consequences of those mistakes in leadership, liberals believe EVERYBODY must pay to bail them out. If a state does the same thing and goes billions into debt, and creates an environment where there are more people on welfare than working, like California, liberals believe that rather than let the people of California suffer the consequences of their elected leaders mistakes, the people of Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and all the other states where the people have forced state governments to have balanced budgets must help pay for California, Illinois, and New York's mistakes.
Liberalism, and the oppressive tyranny it imposes forces one-size-fits-all actions in a world where the people have more and more choices every day. Let's face it, Amazon.com completes more transactions with a vaster variety of products every minute, than the recently upgraded and "fixed" one-size-fits-all Healthcare.gov has ever been able to complete in a day. Healthcare.gov is a massive mistake created for "your own good" that everybody must pay for. It is tyranny in action for your own good.
The very idea that because some people if given the freedom to make life choices might not make the wisest choices, the state should have the authority to force people to accept limits on those choices is the underlying premise of modern liberals. Once accepting that premise, they extrapolate that to put the responsibility for the consequences on the state, and as such it has the authority to force those who exercise what freedom it allows profitably to pay for the unwise life choices of everyone else. Liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms are a non-functional, authoritative, overbearing philosophy that depends on tyranny to implement and is completely out of step with the modern world and the very idea of liberty.
Liberal ideas cannot be implemented without force, as such most are immoral. Simply put Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Thanksgiving and Libertarian Thoughts
By Tom Rhodes, 9/28/2013
Thanksgiving is a celebration of implementing Libertarian Ideas
Embracing the idea that people are entitled to the goods and services based on their need and people were expected to produce based on their ability where all property was held in common; the Pilgrims came to America and formed a commune in 1621. By 1623 most had died of starvation and of the original pilgrims only 5 women lived. This became known as the “tragedy of the commons.” The bounty we celebrate as Thanksgiving came from the abandoning of that idea and embracing 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
If one person has a right to something he did not earn, that means another person does not have a right to something he did earn.
The society that casts morality aside will have no choice but to suffer the consequences.
Real Campaign Finance Reform would not restrict people or companies from spending on politics, it would however reduce the affect of that money by reducing the ability of lawmakers to take advantage and misuse that money by including:
A ban on lawmakers from working for companies affected by legislation they wrote while in office for a period of time equal to what they spent in office or 10 years, whichever is longer.
A ban on lawmakers’ family members from being lobbyists while he lawmaker is in office and for an equal period of time the lawmaker was in office afterwards.
A ban on lawmakers’ family members from being on campaign payrolls or receiving any campaign moneys.
A ban on the solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions while congress is in session, including general contributions to all parties who have an elected official in office.
Over 100 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century based on the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Are we going to kill young people who refuse to buy insurance to fund old people’s health care?
If getting healthcare is a right. . . If getting good healthy food is a right. . . if getting an education is a right. . . if having shelter is a right. . . why worry about getting a job and earning those things even if you do nothing and haven’t earned them yourself, you have a right to the earnings of others to pay for them.
Like the lady say’s “Somebody gotta pay for all my kids.”
I wonder if the lame stream press and Democrats and Republicans are getting tired of Libertarians saying “I told you so” when the predictions of Ron Paul, the Cato institute, John Stossel and other libertarians repeatedly prove to be true?
I’m often asked why the LPF Platform doesn’t have planks on women’s rights, gay rights, abortion rights, etc. I tell them we don’t need redundant planks in the platform and point them to plank that says we condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Then ask, do you think some people deserve different rewards or punishments from the government because they are “women” or “gay” or whatever?
Why do liberals talk about rights, but never consequences?
Why do conservatives talk about consequences but never liberty?
Why don’t we have so few good libertarian candidates? Because a good libertarian knows he doesn’t have all the answers on how somebody else should live so doesn’t want to dictate to others how to live, thus doesn’t want power, instead just wants to be left alone.
Nixon is known for the lie, “I’m not a crook.” His lie was covering up spying on the opposing political party. His legacy is and always will be of a liar.
Clinton is known for the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He lied about abusing his power to get women. His legacy is and always will be of a liar.
Obama is known for the lie, “If you like your insurance you can keep it. Period!” He purposefully lied to manipulate the people to accept government takeover of the health care industry. His legacy is and always will be of a liar.
Why do Republicans listen to Rove, Romney, McCain and Dole on what the GOP needs to do to win a presidential election? They are all losers. Why do they listen to the Democrats on what they should do, the Democrats want them to lose. Why don’t they take the position Cruz or better yet of Reagan? They were winners.
Why do Libertarians keep embracing Republicans who lost as Republicans, as “electable” Libertarians? Gary Johnson, Wayne Allen Root, Bob Bar, etc.
Why does the Libertarian Party whenever things start to look up, shoot itself in the foot, by embracing both the libertine and anarchist, who the rational voting public will not trust with the reins of government?
What does it say about liberty, and our society, when the sentiment of a significant part of the population and press think that law abiding people shouldn’t shoot armed robbers committing crimes, saying that the armed thief was a “good boy” who didn’t deserve to die?
Es ist kein Verfolgungswahn - Sie sind wirklich hinter dir her
Replace the name “Lyle“ with “Snowden” and the block buster movie we watched 15 years ago, Enemy of the State, could today be nominated for an Oscar as a documentary.
If you read the news you can only come to one conclusion, the following concepts are Dead in the USA: Due Process; Innocent Until Proven Guilty; Limited Government; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Religion; Freedom of Assembly;
People who make sport of sucker punching innocent people are uncivilized barbarians.
Why are people amassing disproportionate amounts of wealth dangerous, but concentrating more power in fewer people not? Why do those who want to redistribute the wealth of others consistently seek to concentrate power? Why is inequality of wealth bad but inequality of power good?
Speaking of Voluntary Redistribution of Wealth. Coca-Cola has suspended advertising in the typhoon-ravaged Philippines and instead promised to donate the allotted branding funds to relief efforts. Coke has donated more than 129,000 cases of water to affected areas, donated $1 million to the American National Red Cross and provided $1 million for additional relief initiatives. When some liberal rants “Whose going to take care of the needy if the government doesn’t” just tell them to get the government out of the way, and the free market can and will take care of the needy.
Happy Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving is a celebration of implementing Libertarian Ideas
Embracing the idea that people are entitled to the goods and services based on their need and people were expected to produce based on their ability where all property was held in common; the Pilgrims came to America and formed a commune in 1621. By 1623 most had died of starvation and of the original pilgrims only 5 women lived. This became known as the “tragedy of the commons.” The bounty we celebrate as Thanksgiving came from the abandoning of that idea and embracing 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15
If one person has a right to something he did not earn, that means another person does not have a right to something he did earn.
The society that casts morality aside will have no choice but to suffer the consequences.
Real Campaign Finance Reform would not restrict people or companies from spending on politics, it would however reduce the affect of that money by reducing the ability of lawmakers to take advantage and misuse that money by including:
Over 100 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century based on the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Are we going to kill young people who refuse to buy insurance to fund old people’s health care?
If getting healthcare is a right. . . If getting good healthy food is a right. . . if getting an education is a right. . . if having shelter is a right. . . why worry about getting a job and earning those things even if you do nothing and haven’t earned them yourself, you have a right to the earnings of others to pay for them.
Like the lady say’s “Somebody gotta pay for all my kids.”
I wonder if the lame stream press and Democrats and Republicans are getting tired of Libertarians saying “I told you so” when the predictions of Ron Paul, the Cato institute, John Stossel and other libertarians repeatedly prove to be true?
I’m often asked why the LPF Platform doesn’t have planks on women’s rights, gay rights, abortion rights, etc. I tell them we don’t need redundant planks in the platform and point them to plank that says we condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Then ask, do you think some people deserve different rewards or punishments from the government because they are “women” or “gay” or whatever?
Why do liberals talk about rights, but never consequences?
Why do conservatives talk about consequences but never liberty?
Why don’t we have so few good libertarian candidates? Because a good libertarian knows he doesn’t have all the answers on how somebody else should live so doesn’t want to dictate to others how to live, thus doesn’t want power, instead just wants to be left alone.
Nixon is known for the lie, “I’m not a crook.” His lie was covering up spying on the opposing political party. His legacy is and always will be of a liar.
Clinton is known for the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He lied about abusing his power to get women. His legacy is and always will be of a liar.
Obama is known for the lie, “If you like your insurance you can keep it. Period!” He purposefully lied to manipulate the people to accept government takeover of the health care industry. His legacy is and always will be of a liar.
Why do Republicans listen to Rove, Romney, McCain and Dole on what the GOP needs to do to win a presidential election? They are all losers. Why do they listen to the Democrats on what they should do, the Democrats want them to lose. Why don’t they take the position Cruz or better yet of Reagan? They were winners.
Why do Libertarians keep embracing Republicans who lost as Republicans, as “electable” Libertarians? Gary Johnson, Wayne Allen Root, Bob Bar, etc.
Why does the Libertarian Party whenever things start to look up, shoot itself in the foot, by embracing both the libertine and anarchist, who the rational voting public will not trust with the reins of government?
What does it say about liberty, and our society, when the sentiment of a significant part of the population and press think that law abiding people shouldn’t shoot armed robbers committing crimes, saying that the armed thief was a “good boy” who didn’t deserve to die?
Es ist kein Verfolgungswahn - Sie sind wirklich hinter dir her
Replace the name “Lyle“ with “Snowden” and the block buster movie we watched 15 years ago, Enemy of the State, could today be nominated for an Oscar as a documentary.
If you read the news you can only come to one conclusion, the following concepts are Dead in the USA: Due Process; Innocent Until Proven Guilty; Limited Government; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Religion; Freedom of Assembly;
People who make sport of sucker punching innocent people are uncivilized barbarians.
Why are people amassing disproportionate amounts of wealth dangerous, but concentrating more power in fewer people not? Why do those who want to redistribute the wealth of others consistently seek to concentrate power? Why is inequality of wealth bad but inequality of power good?
Speaking of Voluntary Redistribution of Wealth. Coca-Cola has suspended advertising in the typhoon-ravaged Philippines and instead promised to donate the allotted branding funds to relief efforts. Coke has donated more than 129,000 cases of water to affected areas, donated $1 million to the American National Red Cross and provided $1 million for additional relief initiatives. When some liberal rants “Whose going to take care of the needy if the government doesn’t” just tell them to get the government out of the way, and the free market can and will take care of the needy.
Happy Thanksgiving
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Civility of a Bully
By Tom Rhodes, 11/27/2013
There is lots of talk today about how uncivil politics in America has become. How the hate and uncompromising attitudes between politicians is hurting the country. That's crap, compared to the past today's congressmen and politicians are models of etiquette and decorum.
In 1856 Senator Sumner delivered a speech denouncing a political position and not only liabled Senator Brooks' home state, but publically mocked his relatives. In General Senator Sumner was bullying all those who didn't agree with him. Two days later Senator Brooks confronted Sumner on the senate floor, and before their conversation was over, Brooks, in a frenzy, beat Sumner over the head at least 30 times with a gold-headed cane. Sumner, his legs trapped under the bolted-down desk, finally wrenched it loose from the floor and collapsed with his head covered with blood. Obviously today's ranting and raving is civilized in comparison. What Senator Brooks did was wrong, but is the commonly observed over reaction of the victim of relentless bullying.
Of course that uncivil behavior by congress reflected the mood of the nation at the time and less than a decade later we had some civil unrest in an event that is officially known as The War Between the States.
The Civil War was preceded by politicians who quit debating ideas and principles, and instead resorted to ad hominem attacks and vilified their opponents, dehumanizing and bullying them. Today we see those supporting statism and tyranny resorting to the same tactics. Statists are using bullying not discussion to attempt to silence their opponents. One of the many ways this is evidenced is their resorting to labeling and name calling those who have honest rational differences with the president as racists, in an attempt to silence differing views. If you've ever been bullied as a kid you know there are only three ways to deal with a bully: move away and distance yourself so that he has no influence over your; physically stand up to him and fight, win or lose make bullying you so painful that the bully goes hunting someplace else; or submit to the bully.
If you submit, the bully always takes more until you have nothing worth taking and he goes on to better pickings, or you are a virtual slave until you move away, so submitting although not confrontational is only good for the bully, and reinforces the behavior. Moving away from a bully may not be possible, and even if successful results in emboldening the bully because his tactics were successful.
The option I didn't mention is the current statist dogma taught to children, to tell some adult and the people in charge will protect you. If you've ever been bullied you know that this is a laughable solution and only results in more bullying. Adults can't watch you 24/7 and the bully will get even and make things far worse. The reality is that the people in charge have ZERO accountability to protect any individual, nor obligation to protect any individual. On larger scales the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that police and government have no legal obligation to protect anybody. Ask anybody who's been attacked after seeking government protection and getting a "restraining order" on the person threatening them. The truth is that only you are responsible for you and your family's security, PERIOD! If you don't deal with the bully, he will continue to bully you.
The one and absolutely most effective way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him and make it so painful that he quits bullying you. Even if you lose the fight, if you inflict enough pain, the bully either quits completely or reverts to much less severe actions. When a bully pushes too far and you end up with a kid going berserk and an abrupt vicious violent fight. Bullies pick on the weak, they are generally cowards, and work on the premise that might makes right.
The same can be said for our statist government. It picks on small businesses not strong enough to stand up to it, granting exceptions to their bullying to big corporations and unions who are so strong it's too costly to fight. The same for treatment of individuals, they keep taking more and more using the threat of force to all those who have something to take, while avoiding the few strong enough to fight back.
Today we see record numbers of people exiting the country, an effective means of distancing yourself from a bully.
Today we see people purposefully reducing their income to a point that they are no longer worth the bullies effort.
Today most people meekly give the bully our lunch money rather that get beat up. As our Declaration of Independence notes, " all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable."
Today we see the bully being bought off so he goes looking somewhere else, just look at the number of congressional family members working for as lobbyists. Remember Joe Biden saying he was going to go after and investigate Video Gaming Industry in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. You don't hear much about that anymore, could it have anything to do with the massive increase in lobby dollars spent by the Video Game Industry since then. The mere threat of "investigation" and doing something about the Video Game Industry lead to a massive increase in their lobbying efforts. Obviously they don't even have to create laws to extort money from big business, the mere threat of laws is enough to line their coffers.
The fact is we as a people now must treat our government like a bully. Cheating on your taxes is now viewed the same as hiding some of your lunch money in your sock so the bully doesn't find it. The rule of law is dead, making friends with the bully means you get to get away with stuff the uncool kids can't. It worked for BP who waved a mere $20B at the president and the government then picked up the tab for trillions of dollars of damage caused by the Gulf Oil Spill.
Let's hope the bully, that is now our statist government, doesn't push much harder and rejects the tactics of Senator Sumner, the result could end up the same. The people of America are like the fat kid in this now famous video, at some point we will get fed up.
Although Americans are "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Ask King George what happened when the liberty loving people of former colonies get fed up with his bullying.
There is lots of talk today about how uncivil politics in America has become. How the hate and uncompromising attitudes between politicians is hurting the country. That's crap, compared to the past today's congressmen and politicians are models of etiquette and decorum.
In 1856 Senator Sumner delivered a speech denouncing a political position and not only liabled Senator Brooks' home state, but publically mocked his relatives. In General Senator Sumner was bullying all those who didn't agree with him. Two days later Senator Brooks confronted Sumner on the senate floor, and before their conversation was over, Brooks, in a frenzy, beat Sumner over the head at least 30 times with a gold-headed cane. Sumner, his legs trapped under the bolted-down desk, finally wrenched it loose from the floor and collapsed with his head covered with blood. Obviously today's ranting and raving is civilized in comparison. What Senator Brooks did was wrong, but is the commonly observed over reaction of the victim of relentless bullying.
Of course that uncivil behavior by congress reflected the mood of the nation at the time and less than a decade later we had some civil unrest in an event that is officially known as The War Between the States.
The Civil War was preceded by politicians who quit debating ideas and principles, and instead resorted to ad hominem attacks and vilified their opponents, dehumanizing and bullying them. Today we see those supporting statism and tyranny resorting to the same tactics. Statists are using bullying not discussion to attempt to silence their opponents. One of the many ways this is evidenced is their resorting to labeling and name calling those who have honest rational differences with the president as racists, in an attempt to silence differing views. If you've ever been bullied as a kid you know there are only three ways to deal with a bully: move away and distance yourself so that he has no influence over your; physically stand up to him and fight, win or lose make bullying you so painful that the bully goes hunting someplace else; or submit to the bully.
If you submit, the bully always takes more until you have nothing worth taking and he goes on to better pickings, or you are a virtual slave until you move away, so submitting although not confrontational is only good for the bully, and reinforces the behavior. Moving away from a bully may not be possible, and even if successful results in emboldening the bully because his tactics were successful.
The option I didn't mention is the current statist dogma taught to children, to tell some adult and the people in charge will protect you. If you've ever been bullied you know that this is a laughable solution and only results in more bullying. Adults can't watch you 24/7 and the bully will get even and make things far worse. The reality is that the people in charge have ZERO accountability to protect any individual, nor obligation to protect any individual. On larger scales the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that police and government have no legal obligation to protect anybody. Ask anybody who's been attacked after seeking government protection and getting a "restraining order" on the person threatening them. The truth is that only you are responsible for you and your family's security, PERIOD! If you don't deal with the bully, he will continue to bully you.
The one and absolutely most effective way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him and make it so painful that he quits bullying you. Even if you lose the fight, if you inflict enough pain, the bully either quits completely or reverts to much less severe actions. When a bully pushes too far and you end up with a kid going berserk and an abrupt vicious violent fight. Bullies pick on the weak, they are generally cowards, and work on the premise that might makes right.
The same can be said for our statist government. It picks on small businesses not strong enough to stand up to it, granting exceptions to their bullying to big corporations and unions who are so strong it's too costly to fight. The same for treatment of individuals, they keep taking more and more using the threat of force to all those who have something to take, while avoiding the few strong enough to fight back.
Today we see record numbers of people exiting the country, an effective means of distancing yourself from a bully.
Today we see people purposefully reducing their income to a point that they are no longer worth the bullies effort.
Today most people meekly give the bully our lunch money rather that get beat up. As our Declaration of Independence notes, " all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable."
Today we see the bully being bought off so he goes looking somewhere else, just look at the number of congressional family members working for as lobbyists. Remember Joe Biden saying he was going to go after and investigate Video Gaming Industry in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. You don't hear much about that anymore, could it have anything to do with the massive increase in lobby dollars spent by the Video Game Industry since then. The mere threat of "investigation" and doing something about the Video Game Industry lead to a massive increase in their lobbying efforts. Obviously they don't even have to create laws to extort money from big business, the mere threat of laws is enough to line their coffers.
The fact is we as a people now must treat our government like a bully. Cheating on your taxes is now viewed the same as hiding some of your lunch money in your sock so the bully doesn't find it. The rule of law is dead, making friends with the bully means you get to get away with stuff the uncool kids can't. It worked for BP who waved a mere $20B at the president and the government then picked up the tab for trillions of dollars of damage caused by the Gulf Oil Spill.
Let's hope the bully, that is now our statist government, doesn't push much harder and rejects the tactics of Senator Sumner, the result could end up the same. The people of America are like the fat kid in this now famous video, at some point we will get fed up.
Although Americans are "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Ask King George what happened when the liberty loving people of former colonies get fed up with his bullying.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology
By Tom Rhodes, 11/25/2013
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. They have Declared the [ open air quote ] Science is Settled[ close air quote ]. Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy.
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including AMS meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the pope; in this case crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The liberal faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs just seek a excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. They have Declared the [ open air quote ] Science is Settled[ close air quote ]. Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy.
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including AMS meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the pope; in this case crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The liberal faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs just seek a excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Rule of Law / Worldview
Rule of Law / Worldview
By Tom Rhodes, 11/23/2013
You have a weltanschauung, or worldview. It is your comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe. For culture and societies to prosper and flourish they must share a worldview, when people have drastically different weltanschauung there is conflict, often violent. Obama wanted “Change” for America, the problem is he doesn’t share the same weltanschauung as the vast majority of society. America is undergoing drastic changes because we no longer share a common world view. Obama’s first and foremost attack is on a fundamental of our culture to force acceptance of his worldview on a society which was founded on and rejected, that being the rule of law.
Truth is a stumbling block to those who do not want to be ruled by law. That’s why Obama infamously noted that the problem with being president was the constitution keeps getting in the way of “getting things done.” The simple observable objective truth that you cannot ignore is that you CANNOT have the rule of law and majority rule at the same time.
This blog has extensive articles on the Rule of Law. It’s a worldview that most liberals and big government statists now reject. It’s origins are Biblical, as in Judeo- Christian. Read here for more on that subject
Since becoming president, Obama has routinely rejected the rule of law, granting exemptions, special favors, and instead ruling by divine fiat just as kings of old. The reason is he has a Pagan not Christian world view.
A modern pagan generally calls themselves atheists, although some revere Gaia, but in general it’s based on rejecting the Judeo-Christian God. Such a world view is statist not liberal nor conservative:
The state is divine
State authority is unlimited
Which leads to state worship
Resulting in tyranny
Based on evolution
A Biblical worldview, is not statist nor liberal nor conservative, in general it results in what today is know as libertarian:
The state is divinely ordained (Exodus 18:21)
State authority is limited
Which leads to patriotism
Which results in a republic (Article 4, United States Constitution)
Based on creation
America is a republic not a democracy. The difference is world view, a republic is ruled by law a democracy is ruled by opinion. Well we used to have a republic based on a Christian world view, today we have a tyranny based on worshiping the state. Statist leaders get angry that the people don’t just obey their tens of thousands of laws, they firmly believe that the ruling elite know better how everybody should live and reject the rule of law. Imagine if a congressman got caught doing drugs and was subjected to the same treatment as a 20 yr old black man. The rule of is dead.
If you doubt the Christian foundations for the rule of law, read this
The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny, before you comment. Whether my fellow Libertarians accept it or not, libertarian values are rooted in Christianity, not secularism.
Today statists worship the state as protector, provider, and ruler. A worldview that is destroying America. Until and unless the voters and our culture adopt a world view that doesn’t assume that rulers are above the law, including our police, and we revert to embracing the radical idea that NOBODY is above the law, we are destined to go the way or Rome. From the Knockout game to Too Big To fail, each end of the socioeconomic spectrum, our society has rejected the rule of law. That is why the LP only gets a small percentage of the vote. If libertarians were elected, and insisted on the rule of law, the treatment of “troubled teens” or congressmen when breaking the same law would be the same.
Franklin famously said our form of governmet was a Republic, "If we could keep it."
So what do you want Rule of Law or rule of the majority, you can't have both.
By Tom Rhodes, 11/23/2013
You have a weltanschauung, or worldview. It is your comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe. For culture and societies to prosper and flourish they must share a worldview, when people have drastically different weltanschauung there is conflict, often violent. Obama wanted “Change” for America, the problem is he doesn’t share the same weltanschauung as the vast majority of society. America is undergoing drastic changes because we no longer share a common world view. Obama’s first and foremost attack is on a fundamental of our culture to force acceptance of his worldview on a society which was founded on and rejected, that being the rule of law.
Truth is a stumbling block to those who do not want to be ruled by law. That’s why Obama infamously noted that the problem with being president was the constitution keeps getting in the way of “getting things done.” The simple observable objective truth that you cannot ignore is that you CANNOT have the rule of law and majority rule at the same time.
This blog has extensive articles on the Rule of Law. It’s a worldview that most liberals and big government statists now reject. It’s origins are Biblical, as in Judeo- Christian. Read here for more on that subject
Since becoming president, Obama has routinely rejected the rule of law, granting exemptions, special favors, and instead ruling by divine fiat just as kings of old. The reason is he has a Pagan not Christian world view.
A modern pagan generally calls themselves atheists, although some revere Gaia, but in general it’s based on rejecting the Judeo-Christian God. Such a world view is statist not liberal nor conservative:
A Biblical worldview, is not statist nor liberal nor conservative, in general it results in what today is know as libertarian:
America is a republic not a democracy. The difference is world view, a republic is ruled by law a democracy is ruled by opinion. Well we used to have a republic based on a Christian world view, today we have a tyranny based on worshiping the state. Statist leaders get angry that the people don’t just obey their tens of thousands of laws, they firmly believe that the ruling elite know better how everybody should live and reject the rule of law. Imagine if a congressman got caught doing drugs and was subjected to the same treatment as a 20 yr old black man. The rule of is dead.
If you doubt the Christian foundations for the rule of law, read this
The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny, before you comment. Whether my fellow Libertarians accept it or not, libertarian values are rooted in Christianity, not secularism.
Today statists worship the state as protector, provider, and ruler. A worldview that is destroying America. Until and unless the voters and our culture adopt a world view that doesn’t assume that rulers are above the law, including our police, and we revert to embracing the radical idea that NOBODY is above the law, we are destined to go the way or Rome. From the Knockout game to Too Big To fail, each end of the socioeconomic spectrum, our society has rejected the rule of law. That is why the LP only gets a small percentage of the vote. If libertarians were elected, and insisted on the rule of law, the treatment of “troubled teens” or congressmen when breaking the same law would be the same.
Franklin famously said our form of governmet was a Republic, "If we could keep it."
So what do you want Rule of Law or rule of the majority, you can't have both.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Do You Grok?
By Tom Rhodes, 11/20/2013
The news and net are all talking about the libertarian influence in the GOP. The Libertarian Party (LP) has seen a significant influx of new life, mostly disgruntled Republicans. The problem is that Republicans don't grok. In fact many new libertarians don't grok. In fact if you don't grok you don't understand the foundations of the LP.
If by now you are saying WTF is this asshole talking about. If you're thinking "What's this "grok" crap" then I suggest you read a book,google it, read the wiki and a few other references and come back when you're more literate.
The reason the GOP and the lame stream press, and especially liberals are up in arms over libertarians and libertarian ideas is that they don't grok. Until people grok liberty and all it entails it won't be accepted.
To fully embrace the idea that all people are free and created with the same unalienable rights also assumes that for people to prosper they must be self governing, self reliant, and moral. To grok libertarian ideas you must not just "understand" but embrace and own the realty that in a free society those who aren't self governing, self reliant, and moral, most likely will suffer and so will their children. Libertarianism embraces charity, and libertarians give freely, but accept that charity often has strings. It accepts the fact that some people will be denied charity if they don't meet the conditions the charity providers. So if a charity may offer food and shelter to a drunk only if the drunk agrees to get sober. Failing to get sober may result in the charity stopping its provision.
Merely existing doesn't grant you the right to other people's property or labor. If you're a woman who has three babies from three different fathers before your 25, and don't have a good paying job, a massive savings, or a husband to provide for you and your kids, then in a libertarian society you and they will probably suffer privation. If you fully grok liberty you accept the fact that if charity were completely voluntary and not controlled by the government, that the mother in that situation because of her outright objective observable poor moral character as evidenced by her life choices, she might not receive enough voluntary charity to survive, much less have shelter, food, clothing, heat, and cable TV. If you fully grok liberty and equality, you understand why such suffering, and it being seen is preferable to welfare.
Republicans don't grok liberty; too many are part of the soccer mom faction in the GOP, who would rather sacrifice everybody's liberty than see anybody suffer the consequences of exercising liberty. Because some people will fail at being self reliant due to poor life choices, the soccer mom branch of the GOP embraces the idea that the government should take care of everybody cradle to grave. The cry of "How can a civilized society allow such suffering?" demonstrates complete lack of grokking.
Penn Jillette groks libertarianism, he sums up why the Republicans and Democrats don't. The statist parties don't even grock compassion.
Libertarianism isn't some utopian ideology that if everybody were free to do as they please we'd all be fat, happy, and live to ripe old age without want or need. Those who fully grok libertarianism actually have some sound Biblical understanding of life (even if they are atheists), that man has free will, and that because man is fallen some will exercise that free will in a manner that is not in their best interest. Eve proved you can't have it all. Thinking she knew better, trusting the snake, she chose to eat the apple. The result is she and all her children must live with the consequences, in this case she lost her home, easy provision, and perpetual care free painless life. Feminists today still want to eat the apple and not suffer the consequences. Men today still stupidly stand by and say nothing while women make bad choices or even joining them in those bad choices which result in everybody suffering. In a free society so long as you don't abuse your free will you should be allowed to prosper or suffer as a result of your life choices. That includes you and your progeny suffering when you make a bad choice.
To get a glimpse of what grokking libertarianism looks like, read Heinlein's "Moon is A Harsh Mistress." Once you've read that classic, you will have a better grokking of Libertarian thought. You will also better understand why the Republican Party of today will not embrace its libertarian members.
The GOP doesn't have the balls to tell the feminized rank and file that if you choose to smoke, drink excessively, not exercise, over eat, eat crappy food, and get fat, when you find that nobody will voluntarily sell you health insurance at an "affordable" cost, don't expect Uncle Sam to pick up hour health care costs or force some private company to sell you insurance you can afford. A person who chooses to not smoke, eat right, exercises and has no genetic history of disease shouldn't have to subsidize for the insurance of a smoking fat couch potato who's parents and grandparents had a history of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and hemophilia. They won't tell you TANSTAAFL.
The GOP doesn't have the balls to tell big business that we're not going to protect you from small business competition by creating license requirements, and other restrictions on who can do what business. Imagine the GOP telling the AMA, that nobody needs a government license to recommend to a person what drug will help their condition, and you don't have to get the permission of a licensed doctor to purchase said drug. Of course you not the person who recommended the drug must accept the risk of taking that drug. You trust the snake and eat the apple you live with the consequences. It's not the snakes fault you ate the apple, it's your fault you trusted the snake over God. Who has the better reputation? You are responsible for doing your due diligence and for what you put into your body. The government's only job is to protect you from force or fraud not stupidity.
The GOP doesn't have the balls to tell the feminized rank and file that it's not Uncle Sam's job to take care of mom and dad when they get old. To explain it, tell them to read the fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.
A causal factor the GOP will not embrace libertarian ideas is that they have become so feminized they allow emotions to override reality. Avoiding the emotional angst and turmoil experienced from seeing people suffer overrides the reality that allowing everybody to see the consequences of poor life choices will result in fewer people making poor life choices and in the long run will result in less total suffering. The GOP is just like the Democrat party, it is made of people who think they know best how everybody should live, and believe that if everybody would just listen to them and do as they dictate, there would be no suffering, and because not everybody will voluntarily do what they think is best, they should be allowed to force them for their own good. They don't grok liberty or that their version of government just the like the Democrats version is totalitarian.
Do You Grok liberty?
By Tom Rhodes, 11/20/2013
The news and net are all talking about the libertarian influence in the GOP. The Libertarian Party (LP) has seen a significant influx of new life, mostly disgruntled Republicans. The problem is that Republicans don't grok. In fact many new libertarians don't grok. In fact if you don't grok you don't understand the foundations of the LP.
If by now you are saying WTF is this asshole talking about. If you're thinking "What's this "grok" crap" then I suggest you read a book,google it, read the wiki and a few other references and come back when you're more literate.
The reason the GOP and the lame stream press, and especially liberals are up in arms over libertarians and libertarian ideas is that they don't grok. Until people grok liberty and all it entails it won't be accepted.
To fully embrace the idea that all people are free and created with the same unalienable rights also assumes that for people to prosper they must be self governing, self reliant, and moral. To grok libertarian ideas you must not just "understand" but embrace and own the realty that in a free society those who aren't self governing, self reliant, and moral, most likely will suffer and so will their children. Libertarianism embraces charity, and libertarians give freely, but accept that charity often has strings. It accepts the fact that some people will be denied charity if they don't meet the conditions the charity providers. So if a charity may offer food and shelter to a drunk only if the drunk agrees to get sober. Failing to get sober may result in the charity stopping its provision.
Merely existing doesn't grant you the right to other people's property or labor. If you're a woman who has three babies from three different fathers before your 25, and don't have a good paying job, a massive savings, or a husband to provide for you and your kids, then in a libertarian society you and they will probably suffer privation. If you fully grok liberty you accept the fact that if charity were completely voluntary and not controlled by the government, that the mother in that situation because of her outright objective observable poor moral character as evidenced by her life choices, she might not receive enough voluntary charity to survive, much less have shelter, food, clothing, heat, and cable TV. If you fully grok liberty and equality, you understand why such suffering, and it being seen is preferable to welfare.
Republicans don't grok liberty; too many are part of the soccer mom faction in the GOP, who would rather sacrifice everybody's liberty than see anybody suffer the consequences of exercising liberty. Because some people will fail at being self reliant due to poor life choices, the soccer mom branch of the GOP embraces the idea that the government should take care of everybody cradle to grave. The cry of "How can a civilized society allow such suffering?" demonstrates complete lack of grokking.
Penn Jillette groks libertarianism, he sums up why the Republicans and Democrats don't. The statist parties don't even grock compassion.
"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
~ Penn Jillette
Libertarianism isn't some utopian ideology that if everybody were free to do as they please we'd all be fat, happy, and live to ripe old age without want or need. Those who fully grok libertarianism actually have some sound Biblical understanding of life (even if they are atheists), that man has free will, and that because man is fallen some will exercise that free will in a manner that is not in their best interest. Eve proved you can't have it all. Thinking she knew better, trusting the snake, she chose to eat the apple. The result is she and all her children must live with the consequences, in this case she lost her home, easy provision, and perpetual care free painless life. Feminists today still want to eat the apple and not suffer the consequences. Men today still stupidly stand by and say nothing while women make bad choices or even joining them in those bad choices which result in everybody suffering. In a free society so long as you don't abuse your free will you should be allowed to prosper or suffer as a result of your life choices. That includes you and your progeny suffering when you make a bad choice.
To get a glimpse of what grokking libertarianism looks like, read Heinlein's "Moon is A Harsh Mistress." Once you've read that classic, you will have a better grokking of Libertarian thought. You will also better understand why the Republican Party of today will not embrace its libertarian members.
The GOP doesn't have the balls to tell the feminized rank and file that if you choose to smoke, drink excessively, not exercise, over eat, eat crappy food, and get fat, when you find that nobody will voluntarily sell you health insurance at an "affordable" cost, don't expect Uncle Sam to pick up hour health care costs or force some private company to sell you insurance you can afford. A person who chooses to not smoke, eat right, exercises and has no genetic history of disease shouldn't have to subsidize for the insurance of a smoking fat couch potato who's parents and grandparents had a history of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and hemophilia. They won't tell you TANSTAAFL.
The GOP doesn't have the balls to tell big business that we're not going to protect you from small business competition by creating license requirements, and other restrictions on who can do what business. Imagine the GOP telling the AMA, that nobody needs a government license to recommend to a person what drug will help their condition, and you don't have to get the permission of a licensed doctor to purchase said drug. Of course you not the person who recommended the drug must accept the risk of taking that drug. You trust the snake and eat the apple you live with the consequences. It's not the snakes fault you ate the apple, it's your fault you trusted the snake over God. Who has the better reputation? You are responsible for doing your due diligence and for what you put into your body. The government's only job is to protect you from force or fraud not stupidity.
The GOP doesn't have the balls to tell the feminized rank and file that it's not Uncle Sam's job to take care of mom and dad when they get old. To explain it, tell them to read the fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.
A causal factor the GOP will not embrace libertarian ideas is that they have become so feminized they allow emotions to override reality. Avoiding the emotional angst and turmoil experienced from seeing people suffer overrides the reality that allowing everybody to see the consequences of poor life choices will result in fewer people making poor life choices and in the long run will result in less total suffering. The GOP is just like the Democrat party, it is made of people who think they know best how everybody should live, and believe that if everybody would just listen to them and do as they dictate, there would be no suffering, and because not everybody will voluntarily do what they think is best, they should be allowed to force them for their own good. They don't grok liberty or that their version of government just the like the Democrats version is totalitarian.
Do You Grok liberty?
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Analysis Shows LP makes a difference
By Tom Rhodes, 11/6/2013
Here are the numbers from the 2013 Virginia Governor’s Election. What can we conclude from them?
* The dollars spent by Libertarian Candidate Sarvis must be qualified. The Huffington post reported that the Sarvis Campaign and Libertarian Party spent $93,000, but a single donor did spend $300,000 promoting Sarvis on his own.
The data shows a clear microcosm of the two major parties and the largest third party - the LP. It unambiguously demonstrates the priorities, methodology and effectiveness of each party on many levels. Unfortunately it also demonstrates that one single person smart enough to understand the effectiveness of each party’s financial skills can turn an election.
What we know and learn about Democrats
They believe:
* Cost is irrelevant
* Effective use of other people’s money is not important.
History has shown that they govern the same way they run elections.
What we know and learn about Republicans
They believe:
* Cost is marginally relevant
* The use of other people’s money will be noted but not closely.
History has shown they spend less than the Democrats to get similar results.
History has shown they govern the same way they run elections.
What we know and learn about Libertarians
They believe:
* Cost is extremely important
* Effective use of other people’s money is critical
History has shown they spend way less to get effective results.
History has shown they don’t have enough donors to win major elections.
History has shown they govern the same way they run elections.
What the Results Mean and Imply
Knowing the above to be true from viewing other elections, one person single handedly changed the results of the Virginia Governer’s Race. Knowing some basic facts including: the race and state are very evenly divided between the two major parties; the nominal dollars the LP has and historically spend only accounts for 1% of the vote; Libertarians consistently get more votes per dollar spent than either the Democrats or Republicans; and finally by a large margin Republicans lean more libertarian than Democrats.
A liberal Democrat with $300K to invest in the election did careful analysis and threw his money where it would be most effective - The Libertarian Party. In a virtual dead heat between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli his $300K if given to the Democrats to spend on McAuliffe would have been worth a half of a percent of the votes and would probably not made a difference. However, that same money would get 5% of the vote is spent on the Libertarian party. Knowing the LP pulls far more from the Republicans than the Democrats he rightly concluded the most effective use of his dollars would be supporting the LP. In fact neither the Democrats nor Republicans uses money as effectively as the LP - PERIOD!
What we know is that if just 9 rich republicans had joined the lone Democrat and put up $300K each, the election would have gone to the Saris. You won’t hear that from the MSM, that’s a scary thought. Just 10 rich guys, donating less than a third of a million dollars each, and the LP wins in Virginia.
Yes, the analysis is clear and the LP got used by a Democrat to sway a major election. The ruling elites in both parties won’t talk about or look at the effectiveness of the LP. Once the people learn how effective a little money can be in defeating the two factions of the statist ruling elite in Washington they know things will change.
You want to make a difference, put your money where your mouth is! Your $10 monthly donation to the LPF will be as effective as any $100 sent to the Democrats. You can make a difference, go to www.LPF.org and not only pledge, but send $10/month it will be more effective and put to better use than any democrat donating $100/month.
Florida’s a bigger state than Virginia, but then we have a better Candidate running for Governor too. If you’re a Republican businessman and are tired of ever increasing government interference in your business, then put them where they will do the most good and be most effective. The LP, or specifically the Adrian Wyllie Campaign. You cannot put your money to more effective use. You and a few fellow businessmen can make a difference and actually reduce the size of government.
“No party better uses a donated dollar better than the Libertarians, and we’ll do the same in government too.” ~ Pete Bloome, Director At Large, Libertarian Party of Florida Nov. 2013
Here are the numbers from the 2013 Virginia Governor’s Election. What can we conclude from them?
* The dollars spent by Libertarian Candidate Sarvis must be qualified. The Huffington post reported that the Sarvis Campaign and Libertarian Party spent $93,000, but a single donor did spend $300,000 promoting Sarvis on his own.
The data shows a clear microcosm of the two major parties and the largest third party - the LP. It unambiguously demonstrates the priorities, methodology and effectiveness of each party on many levels. Unfortunately it also demonstrates that one single person smart enough to understand the effectiveness of each party’s financial skills can turn an election.
What we know and learn about Democrats
They believe:
* Cost is irrelevant
* Effective use of other people’s money is not important.
History has shown that they govern the same way they run elections.
What we know and learn about Republicans
They believe:
* Cost is marginally relevant
* The use of other people’s money will be noted but not closely.
History has shown they spend less than the Democrats to get similar results.
History has shown they govern the same way they run elections.
What we know and learn about Libertarians
They believe:
* Cost is extremely important
* Effective use of other people’s money is critical
History has shown they spend way less to get effective results.
History has shown they don’t have enough donors to win major elections.
History has shown they govern the same way they run elections.
What the Results Mean and Imply
Knowing the above to be true from viewing other elections, one person single handedly changed the results of the Virginia Governer’s Race. Knowing some basic facts including: the race and state are very evenly divided between the two major parties; the nominal dollars the LP has and historically spend only accounts for 1% of the vote; Libertarians consistently get more votes per dollar spent than either the Democrats or Republicans; and finally by a large margin Republicans lean more libertarian than Democrats.
A liberal Democrat with $300K to invest in the election did careful analysis and threw his money where it would be most effective - The Libertarian Party. In a virtual dead heat between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli his $300K if given to the Democrats to spend on McAuliffe would have been worth a half of a percent of the votes and would probably not made a difference. However, that same money would get 5% of the vote is spent on the Libertarian party. Knowing the LP pulls far more from the Republicans than the Democrats he rightly concluded the most effective use of his dollars would be supporting the LP. In fact neither the Democrats nor Republicans uses money as effectively as the LP - PERIOD!
What we know is that if just 9 rich republicans had joined the lone Democrat and put up $300K each, the election would have gone to the Saris. You won’t hear that from the MSM, that’s a scary thought. Just 10 rich guys, donating less than a third of a million dollars each, and the LP wins in Virginia.
Yes, the analysis is clear and the LP got used by a Democrat to sway a major election. The ruling elites in both parties won’t talk about or look at the effectiveness of the LP. Once the people learn how effective a little money can be in defeating the two factions of the statist ruling elite in Washington they know things will change.
You want to make a difference, put your money where your mouth is! Your $10 monthly donation to the LPF will be as effective as any $100 sent to the Democrats. You can make a difference, go to www.LPF.org and not only pledge, but send $10/month it will be more effective and put to better use than any democrat donating $100/month.
Florida’s a bigger state than Virginia, but then we have a better Candidate running for Governor too. If you’re a Republican businessman and are tired of ever increasing government interference in your business, then put them where they will do the most good and be most effective. The LP, or specifically the Adrian Wyllie Campaign. You cannot put your money to more effective use. You and a few fellow businessmen can make a difference and actually reduce the size of government.
“No party better uses a donated dollar better than the Libertarians, and we’ll do the same in government too.” ~ Pete Bloome, Director At Large, Libertarian Party of Florida Nov. 2013
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Baker Act Obama
By Tom Rhodes, 11/6/2013
Recent events make it clear that we need to question Obama’s competency to hold office. I don’t mean is he inept, I mean is he mentally and emotionally competent to hold office? Obama will not, and probably emotionally cannot, take responsibility for his own actions and words. By now everybody knows he made a calculated political decision and purposefully lied to the American people in order to pass Obamacare.
No amount of torture to the facts will change them. What is now clearly evident is that he has real difficulty taking responsibility for anything he says or does. Even if you love Obama you can’t ignore this fact. There are dozens of video accounts of Obama making this clear declarative promise to the American people in order to get them to urge their congress persons to enact Obamacare. “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance." In every case it made it very clear with no “ifs” “ands” or “buts.”
NBC, not noted for being anti-Obama, also released news showing proof that Obama and his administration knew that Obamacare would result in MILLIONS of people being forced out of their individual insurance plans. Knowing the truth at the time he repeatedly promised America “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance" without putting in any qualifying “ifs” “ands” or “buts” leads to a clear and unambiguous conclusion: Obama purposefully made a calculated decision to lie and mislead the American people.
Obama knew if he told the truth his chosen path to reach his clearly stated goal of single payer government controlled health care would falter, so he clearly and purposefully lied to the American people. Now that he has been caught and exposed, even as a lame-duck who that cannot be reelected and doesn’t have to run for office, he won’t admit to the truth that he and everybody else knows. If it weren’t real and so costly to our society and culture, you might think it’s funny; Substitute a Dead Parrot for Obamacare and you feel like you’re watching an old Monty Python sketch.
This week he again lied saying, "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
That isn’t what he said, that isn’t what he implied, that isn’t what he meant; I know it, you know it, the press knows it, Obama’s administration knows it, and Obama knows it. He made a promise loud and clear that he knew was a lie, and now that it’s exposed he isn’t man enough, strong enough, or honest enough to own it. He sold us a Dead Parrot.
Most parents won’t even tolerate that from their 6 year old child; from the man elected to the highest office in the land, it’s unacceptable, despicable, immature, self deluded, irrational behavior. When an adult is confronted with clear uncontroversial video evidence of their lies, and maintain that they weren’t lying, something is clearly wrong. Obama needs help, he’s got a sick mind and obviously suffers from some kind of delusion. He needs professional help. You’ve heard of a “Napoleon Complex” haven’t you? There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have become obviously mentally unstable, Caligula comes to mind.
In this day and age with our advanced psychological diagnostics and counseling techniques, I’m sure he can be helped, maybe use electroshock therapy. In Florida we have the “Baker Act” where a person whose mental stability makes us suspect that they are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily locked up. In as much as his decisions can be imminently dangerous to massive numbers of people it is clear that we should Baker Act Obama.
Recent events make it clear that we need to question Obama’s competency to hold office. I don’t mean is he inept, I mean is he mentally and emotionally competent to hold office? Obama will not, and probably emotionally cannot, take responsibility for his own actions and words. By now everybody knows he made a calculated political decision and purposefully lied to the American people in order to pass Obamacare.
No amount of torture to the facts will change them. What is now clearly evident is that he has real difficulty taking responsibility for anything he says or does. Even if you love Obama you can’t ignore this fact. There are dozens of video accounts of Obama making this clear declarative promise to the American people in order to get them to urge their congress persons to enact Obamacare. “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance." In every case it made it very clear with no “ifs” “ands” or “buts.”
NBC, not noted for being anti-Obama, also released news showing proof that Obama and his administration knew that Obamacare would result in MILLIONS of people being forced out of their individual insurance plans. Knowing the truth at the time he repeatedly promised America “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance" without putting in any qualifying “ifs” “ands” or “buts” leads to a clear and unambiguous conclusion: Obama purposefully made a calculated decision to lie and mislead the American people.
Obama knew if he told the truth his chosen path to reach his clearly stated goal of single payer government controlled health care would falter, so he clearly and purposefully lied to the American people. Now that he has been caught and exposed, even as a lame-duck who that cannot be reelected and doesn’t have to run for office, he won’t admit to the truth that he and everybody else knows. If it weren’t real and so costly to our society and culture, you might think it’s funny; Substitute a Dead Parrot for Obamacare and you feel like you’re watching an old Monty Python sketch.
This week he again lied saying, "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
That isn’t what he said, that isn’t what he implied, that isn’t what he meant; I know it, you know it, the press knows it, Obama’s administration knows it, and Obama knows it. He made a promise loud and clear that he knew was a lie, and now that it’s exposed he isn’t man enough, strong enough, or honest enough to own it. He sold us a Dead Parrot.
Most parents won’t even tolerate that from their 6 year old child; from the man elected to the highest office in the land, it’s unacceptable, despicable, immature, self deluded, irrational behavior. When an adult is confronted with clear uncontroversial video evidence of their lies, and maintain that they weren’t lying, something is clearly wrong. Obama needs help, he’s got a sick mind and obviously suffers from some kind of delusion. He needs professional help. You’ve heard of a “Napoleon Complex” haven’t you? There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have become obviously mentally unstable, Caligula comes to mind.
In this day and age with our advanced psychological diagnostics and counseling techniques, I’m sure he can be helped, maybe use electroshock therapy. In Florida we have the “Baker Act” where a person whose mental stability makes us suspect that they are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily locked up. In as much as his decisions can be imminently dangerous to massive numbers of people it is clear that we should Baker Act Obama.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Democrats Call for Certain Tradesman to be Slaves of the State
By Tom Rhodes, 11/4/2013
The reality is that Democrats believe in totalitarianism; not that the Republicans are much better. On Nov, 1st, in a debate, Kathleen Murphy, Democrat candidate for Virginia’s House of Delegates, said she believed that the government by law, should force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Murphy’s reasoning was that because many doctors are not accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, it should be a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.
That’s sick, she is saying that by law some people should be forced into working regardless of what they are paid. Many Primary Care Doctors are refusing to accept ne Medicaid and Medicare patients because the government payments don’t cover the costs of services rendered.
Forcing doctors to work, and paying them less than it costs to do that work can easily be seen to fit the very definition of slavery. The World English Dictionary defines slavery as follows:
You can sugar coat it however you want, but Democrat Kathleen Murphy believes that there is a civil relationship between the state and doctors that grants the state absolute power of doctors’ life, liberty and fortunes. In fact the entire Obamacare law, which was passed with only Democrat votes in the house and senate, works under the authoritarian belief that the state has absolute power of the citizens and can force them to purchase the products and services the state demands. You as a mere citizen do not have the freedom to choose how much or even if you want to purchase health insurance. When it comes to healthcare, the State has absolute power over you.
There are other methods authoritarian totalitarians use to enslave the masses. If you were trying to keep more and more people as debt slaves to you, then pushing more and more people into programs that indebt them and no means to get out of that debt would be a good method. Like pushing the idea that ALL students should be prepared for and go to college. The reality is that this idea and policy creates massive numbers of people, who shouldn’t have gone to college, to being deep in student loan debt and have no degrees or worthless degrees. Note how the government owns all student loans, and there are no methods, including bankruptcy, to ever discharge that debt and it is at higher interest rate and suffers greater penalties than other loans.
The system works as designed. NCLB, and education debt are a more subtle, hidden way to enslave the masses, but the Democrats aren’t even trying to hide their totalitarian mindset anymore. What would you call, a government that forces certain tradesmen work regardless of pay, if not totalitarianism?
Do you have a right to working indoor plumbing, and as such a right to force plumbers to keep your plumbing in good repair? Nothing has proven to benefit the health of people than modern plumbing. Would you accept the idea that the government can decree by law a plumber must fix toilets and accept payment for repairs less than the cost of doing the repair? Plumbers are tradesmen; their work has lead to longer lives and less disease than the work of doctors. Doctors are just that, highly trained individuals, a.k.a. tradesmen, in the healing trade.
Why are Democrats calling for people in certain trades to be enslaved by government? The bigger question is why is America and the press accepting of totalitarianism, that the Democrats so embolden, can openly call for enslaving people who are in certain trades and the press and the people don’t even notice?
The reality is that Democrats believe in totalitarianism; not that the Republicans are much better. On Nov, 1st, in a debate, Kathleen Murphy, Democrat candidate for Virginia’s House of Delegates, said she believed that the government by law, should force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Murphy’s reasoning was that because many doctors are not accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, it should be a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.
That’s sick, she is saying that by law some people should be forced into working regardless of what they are paid. Many Primary Care Doctors are refusing to accept ne Medicaid and Medicare patients because the government payments don’t cover the costs of services rendered.
Forcing doctors to work, and paying them less than it costs to do that work can easily be seen to fit the very definition of slavery. The World English Dictionary defines slavery as follows:
1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. work done in harsh conditions for low pay
You can sugar coat it however you want, but Democrat Kathleen Murphy believes that there is a civil relationship between the state and doctors that grants the state absolute power of doctors’ life, liberty and fortunes. In fact the entire Obamacare law, which was passed with only Democrat votes in the house and senate, works under the authoritarian belief that the state has absolute power of the citizens and can force them to purchase the products and services the state demands. You as a mere citizen do not have the freedom to choose how much or even if you want to purchase health insurance. When it comes to healthcare, the State has absolute power over you.
There are other methods authoritarian totalitarians use to enslave the masses. If you were trying to keep more and more people as debt slaves to you, then pushing more and more people into programs that indebt them and no means to get out of that debt would be a good method. Like pushing the idea that ALL students should be prepared for and go to college. The reality is that this idea and policy creates massive numbers of people, who shouldn’t have gone to college, to being deep in student loan debt and have no degrees or worthless degrees. Note how the government owns all student loans, and there are no methods, including bankruptcy, to ever discharge that debt and it is at higher interest rate and suffers greater penalties than other loans.
The system works as designed. NCLB, and education debt are a more subtle, hidden way to enslave the masses, but the Democrats aren’t even trying to hide their totalitarian mindset anymore. What would you call, a government that forces certain tradesmen work regardless of pay, if not totalitarianism?
Do you have a right to working indoor plumbing, and as such a right to force plumbers to keep your plumbing in good repair? Nothing has proven to benefit the health of people than modern plumbing. Would you accept the idea that the government can decree by law a plumber must fix toilets and accept payment for repairs less than the cost of doing the repair? Plumbers are tradesmen; their work has lead to longer lives and less disease than the work of doctors. Doctors are just that, highly trained individuals, a.k.a. tradesmen, in the healing trade.
Why are Democrats calling for people in certain trades to be enslaved by government? The bigger question is why is America and the press accepting of totalitarianism, that the Democrats so embolden, can openly call for enslaving people who are in certain trades and the press and the people don’t even notice?
Florida AG race heats up with Bondi facing opposition
By Karl Dickey
October 30, 2013
Republican incumbent Pam Bondi is facing opposition to retain her position as Florida's Attorney General. Over this past weekend Libertarian Bill Wohlsifer announced he is considering to run for the office and on October 21, 2013 Democrat George Sheldon filed to run for the office. To date, these are the only two potential challengers Bondi has and candidates have into June, 2014 to qualify to be on the November, 2014 ballot.
Attorney Bill Wohlsifer
Wohlsifer is on the Executive Committee for the Libertarian Party of Florida and is an accomplished intellectual property attorney based out of Tallahassee, Florida. Wohlsifer is a freedom advocate looking to free Floridians of what most Floridians find as 'unjust' laws such as the criminalization of medical marijuana in Florida. Earlier this year, Wohlsifer, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Florida, pointed out to the State of Florida that their election laws were not congruent which helped the state party avoid a frivolous fine imposed by the state.
This month the Libertarian Party put out a press release encouraging voters to end the cycle of voting Republican or Democrat and begin voting for Libertarian candidates.
Bondi has been meeting with opposition by both Republicans and Democrats for her position to block the American Airlines and US Airways proposed merger. She also had met with conflict in her attempt to block a proposal expected to be on the November, 2014 ballot for Floridians to decide whether to legalize medical marijuana in the state.
Sheldon is a former Florida Department of Children and Families secretary who left in 2011 to join the Obama administration working under Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Sebelius has been under fire recently for her gross mismanagement of the HealthCare.gov website.
The Libertarian Party of Florida is quickly racking up many qualified candidates to run for public office in 2014 including most notably Adrian Wyllie who is challenging Governor Rick Scott and 20 other candidates in the 2014 Gubernatorial race.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Healthcare.gov Incompetence is on Purpose
By Tom Rhodes, 10/31/2013
The initial launch of Healthcare.gov is a mitigated and obviously incompetent disaster. It is so bad technically that such incompetence cannot be happenstance. The fact is it was purposefully inept in its initial implementation. Yes I said purposefully. The reasoning is clear. The technology to smoothly produce the site is more than available; just use eBay, Google, or Amazon which handle tens of millions of transactions daily. You don't spend those hundreds of millions and get such crap software, they have good effective software for the site, and it will be implemented eventually, at the most effective time. Healthcare.gov's failure is not an accident, because its initial failure did as planned and produced the predictable massive backlash, and attacks against Healthcare.gov, effectively moving the argument to the technical implementation. Healthcare.gov is not Obamacare.
When the smoke clears and the technical "fixes" are announced the new mantra will be that those who continue to denounce and resist Obamacare are the obstructionists. Malcontents who simply hate Obama and no matter what he does good or bad they are against it because they are racists. The actual reality of Obamacare will not be the argument. Fixing Healthcare.gov will equal fixing Obamacare. They can't actually fix Obamacare but making Healthcare.gov work is not going to be a problem. They know how to make it work, knew before they rolled it out, and in fact planned on the initial rollout being horrible, so they could have a "success" in making Obamacare work.
This misdirection is brilliant and the press will support it. Healthcare.gov is not the problem, no matter if it is administered efficiently or poorly, the problem is that Obamacare is Totalitarian!! And good efficient totalitarianism is still Totalitarianism.
Obama and Co. with the compliant press successfully stigmatize anybody opposing Obamacare when they fix a web site. Think about that. They have effectively equated how well a web site works to accepting totalitarian government. The Rove elitists in the GOP are attacking the TEA Party, once Healthcare.gov is fixed the elitists in both parties are going to demonize any GOP or Independent who still opposed Obamacare. The GOP establishment is with this program. This is a maneuver worth of Machiavelli.
Obama's supposed tactical incompetence is a strategic maneuver that will result in taking away attacks on Obamacare as an effective political tool. The establishment Republicans are collaborating with the Democrats, because both liked the status quo (increased statism), and hate the idea that Ted Cruz, and TEA Party Republicans, and Libertarians rocking the boat.
There is no way this maneuver will be thwarted, unless those denouncing the incompetent execution of the Healthcare.gov make it crystal clear that the poor implementation of Healthcare.gov is not the reason Americans oppose Obamacare. The arguments have to be made and brought to the front that Americans Oppose Obamacare because it is a Totalitarian Mandate. We don't care if it is efficiently implemented or not, we don't want it implemented. But because the elitists in the GOP are on the program, the attacks are going to be against Healthcare.gov not Obamacare, and the fervent attacks against libertarians regardless of party, mean this message will be attacked.
We need to get the message away from the poor execution of a web site. Who cares! That's a technical "problem" that can and will be fixed. How well Healthcare.gov works isn't the issue, the issue is being forced to purchase a product or service that meets government standards whether we want that product or not, whether we "need" that product or not. The Issue is government dictating what a doctor can't and can't do on his patient's behalf. The issue is government taking over 1/6th of the country's economy.
Mark my words, the Healthcare.gov will be fixed, and magically be able to handle the volume, and thus the "fix" of Healthcare.gov will be equated with fixing Obamacare. It's a ploy to discredit any who oppose Obamacare and it will work.
The initial launch of Healthcare.gov is a mitigated and obviously incompetent disaster. It is so bad technically that such incompetence cannot be happenstance. The fact is it was purposefully inept in its initial implementation. Yes I said purposefully. The reasoning is clear. The technology to smoothly produce the site is more than available; just use eBay, Google, or Amazon which handle tens of millions of transactions daily. You don't spend those hundreds of millions and get such crap software, they have good effective software for the site, and it will be implemented eventually, at the most effective time. Healthcare.gov's failure is not an accident, because its initial failure did as planned and produced the predictable massive backlash, and attacks against Healthcare.gov, effectively moving the argument to the technical implementation. Healthcare.gov is not Obamacare.
When the smoke clears and the technical "fixes" are announced the new mantra will be that those who continue to denounce and resist Obamacare are the obstructionists. Malcontents who simply hate Obama and no matter what he does good or bad they are against it because they are racists. The actual reality of Obamacare will not be the argument. Fixing Healthcare.gov will equal fixing Obamacare. They can't actually fix Obamacare but making Healthcare.gov work is not going to be a problem. They know how to make it work, knew before they rolled it out, and in fact planned on the initial rollout being horrible, so they could have a "success" in making Obamacare work.
This misdirection is brilliant and the press will support it. Healthcare.gov is not the problem, no matter if it is administered efficiently or poorly, the problem is that Obamacare is Totalitarian!! And good efficient totalitarianism is still Totalitarianism.
Obama and Co. with the compliant press successfully stigmatize anybody opposing Obamacare when they fix a web site. Think about that. They have effectively equated how well a web site works to accepting totalitarian government. The Rove elitists in the GOP are attacking the TEA Party, once Healthcare.gov is fixed the elitists in both parties are going to demonize any GOP or Independent who still opposed Obamacare. The GOP establishment is with this program. This is a maneuver worth of Machiavelli.
Obama's supposed tactical incompetence is a strategic maneuver that will result in taking away attacks on Obamacare as an effective political tool. The establishment Republicans are collaborating with the Democrats, because both liked the status quo (increased statism), and hate the idea that Ted Cruz, and TEA Party Republicans, and Libertarians rocking the boat.
There is no way this maneuver will be thwarted, unless those denouncing the incompetent execution of the Healthcare.gov make it crystal clear that the poor implementation of Healthcare.gov is not the reason Americans oppose Obamacare. The arguments have to be made and brought to the front that Americans Oppose Obamacare because it is a Totalitarian Mandate. We don't care if it is efficiently implemented or not, we don't want it implemented. But because the elitists in the GOP are on the program, the attacks are going to be against Healthcare.gov not Obamacare, and the fervent attacks against libertarians regardless of party, mean this message will be attacked.
We need to get the message away from the poor execution of a web site. Who cares! That's a technical "problem" that can and will be fixed. How well Healthcare.gov works isn't the issue, the issue is being forced to purchase a product or service that meets government standards whether we want that product or not, whether we "need" that product or not. The Issue is government dictating what a doctor can't and can't do on his patient's behalf. The issue is government taking over 1/6th of the country's economy.
Mark my words, the Healthcare.gov will be fixed, and magically be able to handle the volume, and thus the "fix" of Healthcare.gov will be equated with fixing Obamacare. It's a ploy to discredit any who oppose Obamacare and it will work.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Who's Responsible?
By Tom Rhodes, 10/24/2013
Some Libertarians were in uproar over recent news about a school that had the police come into the house and search every student's locker, screaming about abridging the student's civil liberties. There are several, clearly libertarian, reasons that this uproar is unjustified. One, the lockers are not the students property, they belong to the school, and as the owner of the lockers, the school has the right to set the rules to their use, including reserving the right to search/inspect them for prohibited items as the school sees fit. Second, based on legal liability and legal obligations the schools have concerning their charges, look up the term in loco parentis, just as a parent has the right to look in their kids dresser drawers and discipline them accordingly.
More importantly, students do not have all the legal rights and civil liberties of adults. Contrary to what some libertarians think, this is a good thing. We don't let 6 yr olds kids drive, we let 10 yr olds vote, and don't allow 12 yr olds to buy guns. Why? Because they don't have physical abilities, emotional abilities, mental abilities, or experience, to do everything an adult does. Not to say that they are incapable of many adult tasks, experience has shown that many a 6 year old can operate heavy equipment, just look at small family farms.
In times past we allowed any kid who wanted to go to the local hardware store and buy guns and ammo without restrictions. Today you must be an adult to exercise that right, the wisdom of this is clear, today with enough guns in private hands to arm every man, woman, and child, we have a fewer accidental gun deaths than in the past, and accidental gun deaths continues to drop. Restricting the decision and right to purchase arms to adults, who have all their civil rights and have reached an age where they can be held legally responsible for their actions, has proven to be a wise decision, and reasonable. Not the NRA, GOA, nor any reasonable adult thinks that 12 yr old boys shouldn't be allowed to buy guns and ammo. Those in the LP who think children should have all the rights of adults are idiots, ignore human history, and give the LP a bad name. Yes some 10 yr olds are mature enough to own guns, vote, etc. and some 40 yr olds are not mature enough to vote, or drive, and certainly shouldn't own a gun; but individual extremes don't justify either granting kids adult rights nor taking away rights from all adults.
On whole the maturity to assume the responsibility of many adult decisions does not exist in children. That is why parents have both legal and moral authority over their children. Parents as adults are responsible for both the provision and protection of children. But who's responsible for adults?
The anti-gun crowd today bases almost every argument they have against guns on the idea that the state is in loco parentis of every person regardless of age. Their arguments assume that nobody is an adult and that the state is responsible for everybody. Just as a parent can decide which of their kids is allowed to play what video games, or even if their child can own a video game, the anti-gun crowd wants the state to determine which of its children is allowed to own a gun and what types of guns that child can own. Liberal anti-gunners believe the state is every citizen's parent.
Working on the assumption of the state being in loco parentis to every person, they assume the state has (or should have) the legal authority to control what people do, just as parents have the legal authority to control their children. They disregard the fact that with in loco parentis comes not only the legal authority to control the actions and possessions of those you are charged but the legal obligation to protect those you are charged. This is a big problem. The courts have consistently and repeatedly ruled that "government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Those were the decisions of our courts in specific response to a suit against Washington DC police by three young women who had been raped and beaten during a home invasion. During their 14 hour nightmare of repeated rape and assault, two of the women had repeatedly called the D.C. police. They even saw a police car drive by their townhouse after their first call for help. They were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, but the police never showed up. In Warren v. District of Columbia, it was decided that the police have no legal obligation to protect individuals, emphatically saying that individuals not the government are responsible for their own individual safety.
This decision was made at the same time there was ban on firearms in the home for self-defense in Washington DC. Part of the reasoning of both the Heller and McDonald decisions is that individuals not the government are responsible for their own self defense. Thus the law of the land is that all adults have the legal right to arms to defend themselves. This is based on the fact that the only person responsible for any individuals self defense is that individual.
Any liberal anti-gun hoplophobic statist that infers that you have no need of a gun and that the police are there to protect you is either totally ignorant and uninformed or purposefully lying to you. If you depend upon law enforcement to protect you, then you are a self deluded fool. No you don't "have" to own a gun, you can choose not to go where there are high levels of violent crime, choose to live in a safe neighborhood, and choose to take other security precautions. In fact those simple precautions will probably mean that in your entire life you'll never actually need a weapon to protect yourself.
If even one of the women in the Warren v. District of Columbia had been armed, they might not have had to endure 14 hours of rape and assault, and we may not have had the courts remind us that the government is not responsible for our safety. Take the liberal hoplophobe advice and pee your pants when confronted by a rapist; but according to the results of an Obama directed research by the CDC, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
What does this mean and how does it answer the question, "Who's Responsible?" Simple, the government is not in loco parentis of every person, thus you and nobody else has the Duty to Protect you and your family; the government has no legal or moral Duty to Protect, and in assuming the responsibility of being an adult, responsible for your own security and safety, it is important that you know that nothing is more effective for you and your families protection than being armed.
Obama's CDC research confirms the wisdom of our fore fathers, NOTHING, has been found to consistently lower injury rates among crime victims than the victim being armed and using such arms in self defense. The Second Amendment is Pro-Choice, your choice to be armed or not, the government shall not infringe upon your choice. If you remember the old 70's TV Series Kung Fu, then you'll take Po's advice "choose wisely grasshopper."
Some Libertarians were in uproar over recent news about a school that had the police come into the house and search every student's locker, screaming about abridging the student's civil liberties. There are several, clearly libertarian, reasons that this uproar is unjustified. One, the lockers are not the students property, they belong to the school, and as the owner of the lockers, the school has the right to set the rules to their use, including reserving the right to search/inspect them for prohibited items as the school sees fit. Second, based on legal liability and legal obligations the schools have concerning their charges, look up the term in loco parentis, just as a parent has the right to look in their kids dresser drawers and discipline them accordingly.
More importantly, students do not have all the legal rights and civil liberties of adults. Contrary to what some libertarians think, this is a good thing. We don't let 6 yr olds kids drive, we let 10 yr olds vote, and don't allow 12 yr olds to buy guns. Why? Because they don't have physical abilities, emotional abilities, mental abilities, or experience, to do everything an adult does. Not to say that they are incapable of many adult tasks, experience has shown that many a 6 year old can operate heavy equipment, just look at small family farms.
In times past we allowed any kid who wanted to go to the local hardware store and buy guns and ammo without restrictions. Today you must be an adult to exercise that right, the wisdom of this is clear, today with enough guns in private hands to arm every man, woman, and child, we have a fewer accidental gun deaths than in the past, and accidental gun deaths continues to drop. Restricting the decision and right to purchase arms to adults, who have all their civil rights and have reached an age where they can be held legally responsible for their actions, has proven to be a wise decision, and reasonable. Not the NRA, GOA, nor any reasonable adult thinks that 12 yr old boys shouldn't be allowed to buy guns and ammo. Those in the LP who think children should have all the rights of adults are idiots, ignore human history, and give the LP a bad name. Yes some 10 yr olds are mature enough to own guns, vote, etc. and some 40 yr olds are not mature enough to vote, or drive, and certainly shouldn't own a gun; but individual extremes don't justify either granting kids adult rights nor taking away rights from all adults.
On whole the maturity to assume the responsibility of many adult decisions does not exist in children. That is why parents have both legal and moral authority over their children. Parents as adults are responsible for both the provision and protection of children. But who's responsible for adults?
The anti-gun crowd today bases almost every argument they have against guns on the idea that the state is in loco parentis of every person regardless of age. Their arguments assume that nobody is an adult and that the state is responsible for everybody. Just as a parent can decide which of their kids is allowed to play what video games, or even if their child can own a video game, the anti-gun crowd wants the state to determine which of its children is allowed to own a gun and what types of guns that child can own. Liberal anti-gunners believe the state is every citizen's parent.
Working on the assumption of the state being in loco parentis to every person, they assume the state has (or should have) the legal authority to control what people do, just as parents have the legal authority to control their children. They disregard the fact that with in loco parentis comes not only the legal authority to control the actions and possessions of those you are charged but the legal obligation to protect those you are charged. This is a big problem. The courts have consistently and repeatedly ruled that "government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Those were the decisions of our courts in specific response to a suit against Washington DC police by three young women who had been raped and beaten during a home invasion. During their 14 hour nightmare of repeated rape and assault, two of the women had repeatedly called the D.C. police. They even saw a police car drive by their townhouse after their first call for help. They were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, but the police never showed up. In Warren v. District of Columbia, it was decided that the police have no legal obligation to protect individuals, emphatically saying that individuals not the government are responsible for their own individual safety.
This decision was made at the same time there was ban on firearms in the home for self-defense in Washington DC. Part of the reasoning of both the Heller and McDonald decisions is that individuals not the government are responsible for their own self defense. Thus the law of the land is that all adults have the legal right to arms to defend themselves. This is based on the fact that the only person responsible for any individuals self defense is that individual.
Any liberal anti-gun hoplophobic statist that infers that you have no need of a gun and that the police are there to protect you is either totally ignorant and uninformed or purposefully lying to you. If you depend upon law enforcement to protect you, then you are a self deluded fool. No you don't "have" to own a gun, you can choose not to go where there are high levels of violent crime, choose to live in a safe neighborhood, and choose to take other security precautions. In fact those simple precautions will probably mean that in your entire life you'll never actually need a weapon to protect yourself.
If even one of the women in the Warren v. District of Columbia had been armed, they might not have had to endure 14 hours of rape and assault, and we may not have had the courts remind us that the government is not responsible for our safety. Take the liberal hoplophobe advice and pee your pants when confronted by a rapist; but according to the results of an Obama directed research by the CDC, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
What does this mean and how does it answer the question, "Who's Responsible?" Simple, the government is not in loco parentis of every person, thus you and nobody else has the Duty to Protect you and your family; the government has no legal or moral Duty to Protect, and in assuming the responsibility of being an adult, responsible for your own security and safety, it is important that you know that nothing is more effective for you and your families protection than being armed.
Obama's CDC research confirms the wisdom of our fore fathers, NOTHING, has been found to consistently lower injury rates among crime victims than the victim being armed and using such arms in self defense. The Second Amendment is Pro-Choice, your choice to be armed or not, the government shall not infringe upon your choice. If you remember the old 70's TV Series Kung Fu, then you'll take Po's advice "choose wisely grasshopper."
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Fall of American Education
By Tom Rhodes, 10/22/2013
In the last 50 years on average inflation adjusted dollars per student spend on education has tripled. Yet test scores continue to drop and the USA’s actual level of education and actual knowledge and ability to think is diminishing by most measurable standards. Colleges now have more classes in remedial English then Shakespeare. There are dozens of ideas about why this is happening, some politically correct some not PC. There is an idea that is staring us in the face that is so obvious but so Non-PC that it cannot be discussed. We’ll get to it in a moment.
Nobody can scientifically argue that there are not differences in people that are passed down genetically. When two taller people have a baby, the child will more than likely be taller than average. When two red heads have a baby, even though red hair is a recessive trait, the child will have a greater than average chance in having red hair. When two smart people breed, their offspring will more than likely be smarter than average; conversely when two dumb people breed, their offspring will more than likely have less than average intelligence. Like most traits there is a distribution of IQ among humans that can, and often is, illustrated by a bell curve.
One idea that nobody is allowed to talk about is feminism and the perverse incentives it has created being the cause of poorer and poorer standardized test scores. In fact there is an overall reduction in the average IQ of Western Civilization that corresponds with the rise in feminism. Statistics are clear, and on average the higher the education level and IQ of a woman the less children she has and the greater chance she will not have children. Conversely the less education a woman has the more likely she will have more children because we incentivize her to do so by providing her with more money for more children.
No it’s not politically correct to say it but. the reason SAT scores are not going up is because we are becoming dumber as a population. We are dumber as a population because we offer incentives for smart women not to breed and dumb women to breed - PERIOD. At least we’ll have dumb people to support our senior citizens, in Japan, which doesn’t allow much immigration, not only are the more educated having less children, the total fertility of the country is not sustainable. Some in Japan recognized the problem and have published results.
“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.” ~ Lee Kuan Yew
Today in Western Society, specifically the USA, we reward dumb women for breeding, and we reward smart women who remain childless. And we ask what’s wrong in “education” when despite more spending our average SAT and ACT test scores are declining. The answer is simple, fewer smart people are having kids. As a society we’ve told the best and brightest women that being a mother and having kids is beneath their capabilities, and to be a success they should postpone or avoid having children and have careers instead. Why would we expect the average of standardized test scores in the USA to do anything but decline, when our best and brightest are discouraged from doing the most important job a woman can do (that a man can’t), have and raise children. Any man of above average intellect can be an engineer or scientist, but none of them can have babies.
Actions always speak louder than words. If the government wants more of something it subsidizes it. The observable conclusion is that our government wants more smart women to get degrees instead of have children, and more dumb women to have children than get an education. Who’s willing to bet me on this woman’s Mensa Status? I can be certain she doesn’t have a STEM degree. We as a society have subsidized her to have babies. How many of you would bet $1000 that even 1 of her children will eventually earn an engineering or other STEM degree?
The reason our average ACT and SAT scores are going down not up is as plain as the nose on your face, on average more dumb women have kids than smart women, so on average we have dumber offspring. The solution is to have more smart women have more children, we should promote more smart women going to college to get a degree in Mrs. instead of BS. But our politically correct feminist society will continue to blame anything and everything except the scientific truth.
In the last 50 years on average inflation adjusted dollars per student spend on education has tripled. Yet test scores continue to drop and the USA’s actual level of education and actual knowledge and ability to think is diminishing by most measurable standards. Colleges now have more classes in remedial English then Shakespeare. There are dozens of ideas about why this is happening, some politically correct some not PC. There is an idea that is staring us in the face that is so obvious but so Non-PC that it cannot be discussed. We’ll get to it in a moment.
Nobody can scientifically argue that there are not differences in people that are passed down genetically. When two taller people have a baby, the child will more than likely be taller than average. When two red heads have a baby, even though red hair is a recessive trait, the child will have a greater than average chance in having red hair. When two smart people breed, their offspring will more than likely be smarter than average; conversely when two dumb people breed, their offspring will more than likely have less than average intelligence. Like most traits there is a distribution of IQ among humans that can, and often is, illustrated by a bell curve.
One idea that nobody is allowed to talk about is feminism and the perverse incentives it has created being the cause of poorer and poorer standardized test scores. In fact there is an overall reduction in the average IQ of Western Civilization that corresponds with the rise in feminism. Statistics are clear, and on average the higher the education level and IQ of a woman the less children she has and the greater chance she will not have children. Conversely the less education a woman has the more likely she will have more children because we incentivize her to do so by providing her with more money for more children.
No it’s not politically correct to say it but. the reason SAT scores are not going up is because we are becoming dumber as a population. We are dumber as a population because we offer incentives for smart women not to breed and dumb women to breed - PERIOD. At least we’ll have dumb people to support our senior citizens, in Japan, which doesn’t allow much immigration, not only are the more educated having less children, the total fertility of the country is not sustainable. Some in Japan recognized the problem and have published results.
“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.” ~ Lee Kuan Yew
Today in Western Society, specifically the USA, we reward dumb women for breeding, and we reward smart women who remain childless. And we ask what’s wrong in “education” when despite more spending our average SAT and ACT test scores are declining. The answer is simple, fewer smart people are having kids. As a society we’ve told the best and brightest women that being a mother and having kids is beneath their capabilities, and to be a success they should postpone or avoid having children and have careers instead. Why would we expect the average of standardized test scores in the USA to do anything but decline, when our best and brightest are discouraged from doing the most important job a woman can do (that a man can’t), have and raise children. Any man of above average intellect can be an engineer or scientist, but none of them can have babies.
Actions always speak louder than words. If the government wants more of something it subsidizes it. The observable conclusion is that our government wants more smart women to get degrees instead of have children, and more dumb women to have children than get an education. Who’s willing to bet me on this woman’s Mensa Status? I can be certain she doesn’t have a STEM degree. We as a society have subsidized her to have babies. How many of you would bet $1000 that even 1 of her children will eventually earn an engineering or other STEM degree?
The reason our average ACT and SAT scores are going down not up is as plain as the nose on your face, on average more dumb women have kids than smart women, so on average we have dumber offspring. The solution is to have more smart women have more children, we should promote more smart women going to college to get a degree in Mrs. instead of BS. But our politically correct feminist society will continue to blame anything and everything except the scientific truth.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Modern Guilds Crushing Freedom of Speech
By Tom Rhodes, 10/21/2013
Unless you keep your head in the sand, don't pay attention to history, and ignore what's happening in government, you know our Republic is devolving into neo-feudalism, where corporate officers and government bureaucrats are the modern equivalent of dukes, duchesses, princesses, etc. They are the modern royalty live off the work of the toil of serfs. No less prominent are modern guilds. But when you are thinking of a guild think government approved licensed professional.
In feudal times Merchant Guilds controlled the way in which trade was conducted in the towns and cities. Woe to you, if you weren't part of the brewer's guild and tried to sell or even give away your home brew. Today is not only no different, it's worse. Modern society is not nearly as dependent on crafts, as it is information, hence who can provide what information is now regulated by the appropriate guild. . . err... regulatory agency/ licensed professional.
The problem comes with that pesky First Amendment which interferes with information guilds control of their protected ideas. Speech, as in sharing information with your fellow serf (err. . . citizen), is constitutionally protected, unless of course your speech provides information that the guilds (I mean licensed professional) control. Modern guilds are called, licensing boards, and today are supported or controlled by government agencies. Modern guilds increasingly make sharing advice and information within the purview of a licensed professional's "conduct," virtually barring such speech from traditional First Amendment protections.
Not covered much in the main stream press is the story of Steve Cooksey. Cooksey was, to put it mildly, a fat pig of a man, diagnosed as obese with Type II diabetes and told by the government licensed professionals that he would be on insulin and drugs for the rest of his life. Not being content with the official prognostication, he researched and implemented the "Paleolithic" diet in his personal life despite the recommendations from the government sanctioned guild. The results were dramatic weight loss, and normal blood pressure, surgar, lipids, etc. Meaning he no longer needed drugs. Being enthusiastic about his success, he started both a blog gave free advice based on his experience and the benefits of a low-carb lifestyle.
This however undermines the state mandated dietary recommendations and the current teachings of the Nutritionists Guild. This modern guild is called The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition, and it alleged that Cooksey was providing advise illegally, and that whether for free or through compensation, he could not provide such nutritional "counseling" without becoming a licensed nutritionist. So remember if your right to free speech conflicts with a government protected guild, in today's neo-feudal society those favored by the ruling elite, the guilds right to protect who is allowed to transmit information, supersedes any natural right of the individual to freedom of expression.
This isn't a unique case; even Dear Abby like columnists are now being silenced by neo-feudal guilds. America's longest running newspaper columnist, John Rosemond, writes a syndicated column providing parenting advice. The state of Kentucky has told Rosemond to either stop publishing or face both fines and prison. Rosemond is not a licensed shrink in Kentucky, where the attorney general determined his advice column conflicts with requirements of the state approved Shrink's Guild .
You get that, printing opinions in the newspaper is illegal if those ideas/information is controlled by some guild (err... I mean licensed professionals); so much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Right now if you say: "based on my experience you should eat more meat and veggies and avoid sugary treats, pasta and other carbs" you are in violation of the Nutritionist's guild, and can not only be fined or jailed, but silenced. The last great republic to fall was Rome. The fall came with moral decay, the rise of despotic powers, and the end of the rule of law. Guilds of the middle ages provided a modicum of order but little or no liberty outside the blessing of the ruling elite. I guess reverting to neo-feudalism is better than anarchy. Freedom speech once the hallmark of the USA is now openly mocked by those we've elected, as they enact more and more regulations about who can say what and where they can say it. Even our colleges and universities now require that you get permission to speak, and what topics are acceptable and when and where you can share information, (there called free speech zones). What politician do you know today would say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
Regimes of occupational and other government licenses have risen to a level where nearly 1 in 3 jobs have some bureaucratic barrier. Considering we are replacing labor with service jobs, which by definition rely on speech and information this doesn't bode well for the First Amendment. Across the nation the guilds (I mean licensing boards) supported by royalty (I mean elected officials and bureaucrats) are barring common advice and sharing of ideas and experiences with your fellow serf (I mean citizen).
Unless you keep your head in the sand, don't pay attention to history, and ignore what's happening in government, you know our Republic is devolving into neo-feudalism, where corporate officers and government bureaucrats are the modern equivalent of dukes, duchesses, princesses, etc. They are the modern royalty live off the work of the toil of serfs. No less prominent are modern guilds. But when you are thinking of a guild think government approved licensed professional.
In feudal times Merchant Guilds controlled the way in which trade was conducted in the towns and cities. Woe to you, if you weren't part of the brewer's guild and tried to sell or even give away your home brew. Today is not only no different, it's worse. Modern society is not nearly as dependent on crafts, as it is information, hence who can provide what information is now regulated by the appropriate guild. . . err... regulatory agency/ licensed professional.
The problem comes with that pesky First Amendment which interferes with information guilds control of their protected ideas. Speech, as in sharing information with your fellow serf (err. . . citizen), is constitutionally protected, unless of course your speech provides information that the guilds (I mean licensed professional) control. Modern guilds are called, licensing boards, and today are supported or controlled by government agencies. Modern guilds increasingly make sharing advice and information within the purview of a licensed professional's "conduct," virtually barring such speech from traditional First Amendment protections.
Not covered much in the main stream press is the story of Steve Cooksey. Cooksey was, to put it mildly, a fat pig of a man, diagnosed as obese with Type II diabetes and told by the government licensed professionals that he would be on insulin and drugs for the rest of his life. Not being content with the official prognostication, he researched and implemented the "Paleolithic" diet in his personal life despite the recommendations from the government sanctioned guild. The results were dramatic weight loss, and normal blood pressure, surgar, lipids, etc. Meaning he no longer needed drugs. Being enthusiastic about his success, he started both a blog gave free advice based on his experience and the benefits of a low-carb lifestyle.
This however undermines the state mandated dietary recommendations and the current teachings of the Nutritionists Guild. This modern guild is called The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition, and it alleged that Cooksey was providing advise illegally, and that whether for free or through compensation, he could not provide such nutritional "counseling" without becoming a licensed nutritionist. So remember if your right to free speech conflicts with a government protected guild, in today's neo-feudal society those favored by the ruling elite, the guilds right to protect who is allowed to transmit information, supersedes any natural right of the individual to freedom of expression.
This isn't a unique case; even Dear Abby like columnists are now being silenced by neo-feudal guilds. America's longest running newspaper columnist, John Rosemond, writes a syndicated column providing parenting advice. The state of Kentucky has told Rosemond to either stop publishing or face both fines and prison. Rosemond is not a licensed shrink in Kentucky, where the attorney general determined his advice column conflicts with requirements of the state approved Shrink's Guild .
You get that, printing opinions in the newspaper is illegal if those ideas/information is controlled by some guild (err... I mean licensed professionals); so much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Right now if you say: "based on my experience you should eat more meat and veggies and avoid sugary treats, pasta and other carbs" you are in violation of the Nutritionist's guild, and can not only be fined or jailed, but silenced. The last great republic to fall was Rome. The fall came with moral decay, the rise of despotic powers, and the end of the rule of law. Guilds of the middle ages provided a modicum of order but little or no liberty outside the blessing of the ruling elite. I guess reverting to neo-feudalism is better than anarchy. Freedom speech once the hallmark of the USA is now openly mocked by those we've elected, as they enact more and more regulations about who can say what and where they can say it. Even our colleges and universities now require that you get permission to speak, and what topics are acceptable and when and where you can share information, (there called free speech zones). What politician do you know today would say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
Regimes of occupational and other government licenses have risen to a level where nearly 1 in 3 jobs have some bureaucratic barrier. Considering we are replacing labor with service jobs, which by definition rely on speech and information this doesn't bode well for the First Amendment. Across the nation the guilds (I mean licensing boards) supported by royalty (I mean elected officials and bureaucrats) are barring common advice and sharing of ideas and experiences with your fellow serf (I mean citizen).
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Dead Guys View On Today
By Tom Rhodes, 10/16/2013
I was re-reading Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and I realized, he's the late 20th Century equivalent to the late 19th Century's Mark Twain. In fact an entire accurate and timely commentary can be made from quoting these dead guys. Obama's presidency demonstrates, "It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
When listening to Harry Reid comment on the TEA party being anarchists, I've come to realize that I'm "learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid." Equating a group the wants laws that are equally and evenly enforced as people who want no government is ludicrous. When they see stories of little girls with lemonade stands in their front yard being shut down by uniformed police, and call for less regulations, does not make this make the Tea Partiers "anarchists." This got me to wondering, "whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
Browsing today's AP and NYT headlines as well as internet sources for news, one can fundamentally concluded that "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." From the internet, not the lame stream media we see that change is coming. The surviving members of what is sometimes called "the greatest generation" are showing us that there are patriots amoung us willing to ignore and defy the now tyrannical government in DC. "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
The timely quotes of dead humorists fit today in the early parts of the 21st Century as well as they did in the last days of the past two centuries.
I was re-reading Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and I realized, he's the late 20th Century equivalent to the late 19th Century's Mark Twain. In fact an entire accurate and timely commentary can be made from quoting these dead guys. Obama's presidency demonstrates, "It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
When listening to Harry Reid comment on the TEA party being anarchists, I've come to realize that I'm "learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid." Equating a group the wants laws that are equally and evenly enforced as people who want no government is ludicrous. When they see stories of little girls with lemonade stands in their front yard being shut down by uniformed police, and call for less regulations, does not make this make the Tea Partiers "anarchists." This got me to wondering, "whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
Browsing today's AP and NYT headlines as well as internet sources for news, one can fundamentally concluded that "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." From the internet, not the lame stream media we see that change is coming. The surviving members of what is sometimes called "the greatest generation" are showing us that there are patriots amoung us willing to ignore and defy the now tyrannical government in DC. "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
The timely quotes of dead humorists fit today in the early parts of the 21st Century as well as they did in the last days of the past two centuries.
Friday, October 11, 2013
CCF Patriots Ordered Not to Share Constitution
By Tom Rhodes, 10/11/2013
According to a report from Young Americans for Liberty, a group with more than 380 chapters and 125,000 students promoting liberty, tried to give out copies of the US Constitution on Constitution day, The College of Central Florida in Ocala, was stopped because they didn’t have permission. In fact to exercise free speech and talk to others on campus the officer told students they would have to go through his office to get permission “any time you want to approach our students.”.
“We can’t hand out Constitutions?” an incredulous student asked.
“That’s right.”
Citing the need for “proper protocol,” the officer said students could submit a request, and school officials would “check our calendar, make sure it doesn’t conflict with what we’re doing, then we’ll approve it or deny it.”
The Young Americans for Liberty report is supported with this video.
Obviously the First Amendment at The state and federally funded College of Central Florida in Ocala does not apply. I hope they file charges in federal court against CCF and hold the officer and officials at CCF personally liable for infringing on these students rights.
The irony is the athletic teams at CCF are called The Patriots.
This means that CCF has told the Patriots Not to Share the Constitution with fellow Patriots. Irony?
According to a report from Young Americans for Liberty, a group with more than 380 chapters and 125,000 students promoting liberty, tried to give out copies of the US Constitution on Constitution day, The College of Central Florida in Ocala, was stopped because they didn’t have permission. In fact to exercise free speech and talk to others on campus the officer told students they would have to go through his office to get permission “any time you want to approach our students.”.
“We can’t hand out Constitutions?” an incredulous student asked.
“That’s right.”
Citing the need for “proper protocol,” the officer said students could submit a request, and school officials would “check our calendar, make sure it doesn’t conflict with what we’re doing, then we’ll approve it or deny it.”
The Young Americans for Liberty report is supported with this video.
Obviously the First Amendment at The state and federally funded College of Central Florida in Ocala does not apply. I hope they file charges in federal court against CCF and hold the officer and officials at CCF personally liable for infringing on these students rights.
The irony is the athletic teams at CCF are called The Patriots.
This means that CCF has told the Patriots Not to Share the Constitution with fellow Patriots. Irony?
America will Change.
By Tom Rhodes, 10/11/2013
Why do the states of Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, and West Virginia exist? Answer: Succession. That's right these states exist because they succeeded from a larger state that didn't fit the population and their desires. Today in California, Colorado, Michigan, and Maryland there are active movements to form new states. Why? Because once again large urban centers are trying to dictate how to live to small rural parts of their states and tax them to support the urban centers. Once again it comes down to taxation without representation.
Denver/Colorado Springs can and does ignore the rural NE part of the state. Why? Because they don't have enough votes to do anything about what the people in the big city want to do. The big city outlawed common ranch rifles used to chase off and kill coyote and wolves harassing lives stock, because they can be made to look scary, regardless of the need, desires and beliefs of rural Colorado. What could rural NE Colorado do about it? NOTHING.
Garrett, Allegheny, Washington, Frederick and Carroll counties in Western Maryland, want to succeed and or join West Virginia. The people who live in these counties have nothing in common with the citizens of Baltimore and Annapolis. Their views on guns, taxes, marriage, and immigration are consistently ignored by the big city, and they are powerless to do anything. The leader of the Western Maryland Initiative, Scott Strzelczyk, notes that they have no other choice saying, "If you have a long list of grievances, and it's been going on for decades, and you can't get it resolved, ultimately secession is what you have to do."
Northern counties of California want to form the state of Jefferson. Mark Baird of the Jefferson Declaration Committee, notes that, "California is essentially ungovernable in its present size." Rural conservatives in Colorado are powerless and unrepresented in state government, just as the people of Michigan's Upper Peninsula are. Lansing and Detroit look nothing like the UP, don't care what's needed, wanted, or happens in the UP, they can and do ignore the UP because it is powerless to affect them or their actions.
Don't worry if they can the ruling elite in DC won't let any new states form, especially these 4. It would mean 8 more senators and would definitely switch the balance of power away from the urban DC-WallStreet Cabal. The statists who can and do easily buy off and influence urban populations but cannot do so in more self-reliant suburban and rural communities, are not going to allow such a power shift. Like I noted before, It's bad enough that in states like Florida where the 50/50 spit put one Democrat and One Republican in the Senate, and controlling the I4 Corridor and Miami-Dade can win state wide elections, but 2/3rds of the House members from the state are Republican. Not just California, Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan are ripe for secession, but Eastern Washington and Oregon don't look, act, or vote like the population centers on the coasts. The addition of the State of Columbia would better represent Those who live in the Columbia valley east of the Cascades than current traditional borders.
The attitude of statist urbanites, who generally vote Democrat, don't understand flyover America, don't care about it, and want flyover country to shut up and do what their told. The idea that a small number of people who don't have the ability to grasp the superiority of urban culture and ideas and would choose to live in the boonies should actually have representation and influence in government is not tolerable. Hence Obama's famous "bitterly clinging" comment. The cities need the food and goods that flyover country produce, but urban statists are bitter at the fact that those rubes in the hinterland don't understand that the clearly superior culture and ideas urbanites should not be questioned.
Right now there are contiguous groups of people trying to work within the system voluntarily to insure that they have representation and can be a part of government. They want to form states that better represent their communities and beliefs. What happens if we don't allow them to do so? If we don't allow change let people form states in the Union that meet their needs and represent them, then we may leave the people of flyover country little choice but to revolt. We had a revolution that, don't think it couldn't happen again. Consider the following countries that didn't exist 30 years ago, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo, that doesn't include the changes in Africa.
The formation or reinstitution of those countries through both violent and non-violent means in very recent history is a clear indicator that the USA can and will change. The USA has been and is one of the most stable nations on earth, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change. It will change, if statist urbanites continue to push more tyrannical control over flyover America, it will change faster. The question isn't "is America going to change," but will the changes coming to America be voluntary or violent?
Why do the states of Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, and West Virginia exist? Answer: Succession. That's right these states exist because they succeeded from a larger state that didn't fit the population and their desires. Today in California, Colorado, Michigan, and Maryland there are active movements to form new states. Why? Because once again large urban centers are trying to dictate how to live to small rural parts of their states and tax them to support the urban centers. Once again it comes down to taxation without representation.
Denver/Colorado Springs can and does ignore the rural NE part of the state. Why? Because they don't have enough votes to do anything about what the people in the big city want to do. The big city outlawed common ranch rifles used to chase off and kill coyote and wolves harassing lives stock, because they can be made to look scary, regardless of the need, desires and beliefs of rural Colorado. What could rural NE Colorado do about it? NOTHING.
Garrett, Allegheny, Washington, Frederick and Carroll counties in Western Maryland, want to succeed and or join West Virginia. The people who live in these counties have nothing in common with the citizens of Baltimore and Annapolis. Their views on guns, taxes, marriage, and immigration are consistently ignored by the big city, and they are powerless to do anything. The leader of the Western Maryland Initiative, Scott Strzelczyk, notes that they have no other choice saying, "If you have a long list of grievances, and it's been going on for decades, and you can't get it resolved, ultimately secession is what you have to do."
Northern counties of California want to form the state of Jefferson. Mark Baird of the Jefferson Declaration Committee, notes that, "California is essentially ungovernable in its present size." Rural conservatives in Colorado are powerless and unrepresented in state government, just as the people of Michigan's Upper Peninsula are. Lansing and Detroit look nothing like the UP, don't care what's needed, wanted, or happens in the UP, they can and do ignore the UP because it is powerless to affect them or their actions.
Don't worry if they can the ruling elite in DC won't let any new states form, especially these 4. It would mean 8 more senators and would definitely switch the balance of power away from the urban DC-WallStreet Cabal. The statists who can and do easily buy off and influence urban populations but cannot do so in more self-reliant suburban and rural communities, are not going to allow such a power shift. Like I noted before, It's bad enough that in states like Florida where the 50/50 spit put one Democrat and One Republican in the Senate, and controlling the I4 Corridor and Miami-Dade can win state wide elections, but 2/3rds of the House members from the state are Republican. Not just California, Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan are ripe for secession, but Eastern Washington and Oregon don't look, act, or vote like the population centers on the coasts. The addition of the State of Columbia would better represent Those who live in the Columbia valley east of the Cascades than current traditional borders.
The attitude of statist urbanites, who generally vote Democrat, don't understand flyover America, don't care about it, and want flyover country to shut up and do what their told. The idea that a small number of people who don't have the ability to grasp the superiority of urban culture and ideas and would choose to live in the boonies should actually have representation and influence in government is not tolerable. Hence Obama's famous "bitterly clinging" comment. The cities need the food and goods that flyover country produce, but urban statists are bitter at the fact that those rubes in the hinterland don't understand that the clearly superior culture and ideas urbanites should not be questioned.
Right now there are contiguous groups of people trying to work within the system voluntarily to insure that they have representation and can be a part of government. They want to form states that better represent their communities and beliefs. What happens if we don't allow them to do so? If we don't allow change let people form states in the Union that meet their needs and represent them, then we may leave the people of flyover country little choice but to revolt. We had a revolution that, don't think it couldn't happen again. Consider the following countries that didn't exist 30 years ago, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo, that doesn't include the changes in Africa.
The formation or reinstitution of those countries through both violent and non-violent means in very recent history is a clear indicator that the USA can and will change. The USA has been and is one of the most stable nations on earth, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change. It will change, if statist urbanites continue to push more tyrannical control over flyover America, it will change faster. The question isn't "is America going to change," but will the changes coming to America be voluntary or violent?
Saturday, October 5, 2013
CDC Reported the Truth about Guns
By Tom Rhodes, 10/5/2013
Obama ordered the CDC to do research on gun violence in America. What the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal, is not what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. Considering the CDC’s was restricted by law from doing gun research because it got caught doctoring and doing poor studies with an agenda instead of reporting actual facts, you’d be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions. The truth about guns doesn’t support most anti-gun claims.
The truth which hopolophobes even when faced with the clear evidence refuse to accept can be found in the findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
5. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
6. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
As reported by the CDC in the report created in response to Obama’s executive order, the truth, as a hole, is a hammer blow to Obama’s anti-gun agenda. The CDC report supports the wisdom of the second amendment and clearly contradicts common anti-gun arguments.
Let’s repeat the most telling conclusion:
The actual use of guns in self defensive consistently lowers the injury rate of crime victims compared to other self-protective strategies.
To every parent out there, the message from the CDC is clear, if you want your college aged daughter to be safe and survive without injury if the victim of some crime, get her a gun, get her a permit to carry it, and teach her to use it. NOTHING! not martial arts, not pepper spray, not peeing her pants, not screaming, not even running, according to our federal government, NOTHING consistently as effective in improving her chances of getting through a crime than using a GUN in self defense.
What did we hear from the main stream press, or Obama -- crickets chirping --
Obama ordered the CDC to do research on gun violence in America. What the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal, is not what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. Considering the CDC’s was restricted by law from doing gun research because it got caught doctoring and doing poor studies with an agenda instead of reporting actual facts, you’d be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions. The truth about guns doesn’t support most anti-gun claims.
The truth which hopolophobes even when faced with the clear evidence refuse to accept can be found in the findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
5. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
6. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
As reported by the CDC in the report created in response to Obama’s executive order, the truth, as a hole, is a hammer blow to Obama’s anti-gun agenda. The CDC report supports the wisdom of the second amendment and clearly contradicts common anti-gun arguments.
Let’s repeat the most telling conclusion:
The actual use of guns in self defensive consistently lowers the injury rate of crime victims compared to other self-protective strategies.
To every parent out there, the message from the CDC is clear, if you want your college aged daughter to be safe and survive without injury if the victim of some crime, get her a gun, get her a permit to carry it, and teach her to use it. NOTHING! not martial arts, not pepper spray, not peeing her pants, not screaming, not even running, according to our federal government, NOTHING consistently as effective in improving her chances of getting through a crime than using a GUN in self defense.
What did we hear from the main stream press, or Obama -- crickets chirping --
Friday, October 4, 2013
Obama’s Juvenile Temper Tantrum
By Tom Rhodes, 10/4/2013
Concerning the upcoming fight on increasing the Debt Limit, I agree fully with President Obama who said:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
– Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, March 2006
He was 100% right! But that was 2006 when he was a senator. Today he calls any senators saying those very same words “deadbeats” and refuses to negotiate with them. He even has the chutzpa to tell the American people that raising the Debt ceiling won’t raise the national debt.
Obama thinks and acts like the American you’re stupid. The government is “shut down” so he uses more people, materials, and labor to but fences and blocks around national monuments than it takes to do nothing and just leave them open. I’ve been to DC several times, having a nice NPS ranger to standing around to answer questions about the Jefferson memorial is nice, but not necessary. It’s outside, composed of circular marble steps, a portico, a circular colonnade of Ionic order columns, and a shallow dome, the building is open to the elements, has no doors etc.
Ever have your own blog or web page? Take this one, LPCitrus , when I don’t have time (time is money) to work on it, it doesn’t go away, in fact to take it down takes more work and effort and time (hence money) than to just leave it up until I have the time. The shutdown of all the National Park Service and other Government web sites cost more than leaving them up. If we are shut down because the government can’t spend money where did the money come from to shut the web sites down, and why shut them down if they would work and provide service to the American people even during a shutdown with ZERO additional effort.
The answer is obvious, a government shut down is painless to almost all of the people of the USA, Obama and the Democrats are actively trying to cause the most pain they can to get their way. They were offered virtually all the spending on everything but Obamacare and because they refuse to compromise with the Representatives the people put in the House to control spending, government is shut down. Blocking off an outside building made of marble, granite, and concrete is an active political act costing more than leaving it open. Obviously Obama thinks you’re too stupid to realize it. Blaming anybody, the Republicans or even Democrats in the House or Senate is absurd, this is all Obama.
Obama is a crybaby who when he doesn’t get his way decides to take your ball and throws a tantrum to get his way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
