“Libertarian Islamist” an Oxymoron

By Tom Rhodes, 7/29/2013

The foundational principles of libertarian philosophy include the Non Aggression Principle, Equality under the law, and the Rule of Law. You cannot honestly say you’re a Libertarian if you don’t believe that all laws should apply to everybody equally, and that no individual or group is above the law. Believing that any individual or group should have different laws or be treated differently under the law is the path to tyranny and not compatible with libertarianism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) arguably the image and positions of Islamists in America. The official position they have taken, as Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a rally is that Islam that members of the faith should not be bound by American law.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land” ~ Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch

At least he is open and honest about the Islamic Principles. They do not believe in the Rule of Law. The rally was held in Austin as part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.

There is currently a push by some “libertarian” Islamists, to gain acceptance of Islamists in the LP. The general goal is to label and smear those doesn’t say that Islamism is libertarian and embrace Islamists in the LP is bigots. While ignoring debate about principles.

If the LP is the party of principle, it cannot and must not accept people who proclaim that belonging to any group puts them above the law of the land. Not only does this concept violate the Rule of Law, it violates the NAP, it proposes to use the force of government to silence opinions and ideas they don't like and to grant them special privileges over others.

The concept our government was created is that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” To be a good Muslim you must reject this notion. Islamists belief system and holy writ claim that those who don’t believe as they believe are sub-human, and must pay for the privilege of not being Muslim, or become enslaved, or be put to death. Until that basic premise is rejected by Islam, it is not compatible with modern western civilization, much less libertarian principles or the LP.

As long as Islamists reject the rule of law, and want different rules for some people than others, and promote group ideology over individual rights they are not compatible with libertarian philosophy, nor are they compatible with the LP. This isn’t to say if you’re a Muslim you can’t be a member of the LP or can’t be libertarian, but it is to say if you reject the Rule of Law and want different laws or courts for Muslims than the rest of America, you have rejected the LP and its principles. If you don’t openly and publicly reject the idea that “practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” you don’t have a place in the LP.

Winning the War of Ideas

By Tom Rhodes, 7/26/2013

Statists are losing the war of ideas. Look at the NJ liberal governor who happens to look like an elephant, and claims to be an elephant's latest rant against libertarians. Gov Christie says promoting the Fourth Amendment, and limiting the government from searching every persons effects is "dangerous." Like all statists over the history of man, they use the excuse that giving the state control of you will make you safer. What they don't do is tell you they mean "safer for the state" not safer for you.

It's gotten so bad that leftists are now calling for the end of the First Amendment, saying limiting free speech is a "necessity."

The obvious problem is that since the internet has allowed people to communicate and publish without going through government, big business, or a newspaper editor, ideas and information that the ruling elite would rather not have discussed, exposed, or broadcast, are now readily available to everybody. Snowden exposing the state's clear violation of its constitutional restrictions is "dangerous."

Exposing the fact that when liberal statist ideas are implemented, they result is ruin, as evidenced by Detroit after 50 years of liberal statist rule. Statists of all stripes want to put the genie back in the bottle, they want to control what information the masses are exposed. They are losing their grasp on what they thought they controlled. More and more people don't watch television as a primary means of news and entertainment. They have more choices and can actually respond and participate. A guy in his pajamas can expose the ruling elite and bring the actions of the high and mighty to the masses. This not only can, but has resulted in the impeachment of the President of the United States. The Drudge Report lead to Clinton's Impeachment.

The Libertarian Party (LP) has been around for 40 years. It was ignored for years, and until recently was treated as a foil for late night comedians. When formed in the early 70's you had your choice of ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS on TV, and other than highly edited editorials in your local newspaper, the statists controlled the ideas people were exposed, and the LP message was shut down by the ruling elite. In the Mid 80's two things happened to begin the destruction of statist control of the media and ideas. The courts forced the FCC to get rid of the so called "fairness doctrine" which lead to an explosion in talk radio, and technology advanced to a point where the internet became commercially viable. In the last 20 years, digital image technology and cell phones turned virtually every person walking the street into a reporter. That Damn 1st Amendment now means that the cops are routinely exposed for abusing our rights, Rodney King was just the start. Video and audio recording in court rooms, of the police, at town hall meetings, etc. continue to expose statists for the controlling anti-freedom, two-bit dictators they are.

The right says libertarian ideas are dangerous; the left says limiting speech is a necessity; Libertarian ideas and their implementation means more freedom, and less government. Less government means less power for the statist ruling elite. They are fighting the idea that you as an individual know best how to live your own life. That is a dangerous idea, they want control. Education is the key, the internet and 1st Amendment allow everybody to get the education they need and want without filtering by the ruling elite. In addition to wanting restrictions to free speech on the internet, they want to control what your taught. This is why Common Core, NCLB, the Dept of Education, the FCC, etc. exist. This is why Eric Holder is attacking home schooling. Control; they want to control you right down to what ideas you are exposed and what you are allowed to learn. There is a war of ideas and the battle is not over. The preamble of our Constitution starting with "We the People" was a slap in the face of the ruling elite. They now claim that those ideas that culminated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that limited the government are dangerous. They are dangerous; dangerous to the ruling elite.

Because the statists are losing the war of ideas, they are now actively calling on government and corporate control of the ideas people can share. Because of the loss of control to the news, ideas, and information that the masses are exposed, the LP can no longer be ignored. Because of the exposed abuses of power and observable outcomes of statist policies, laughing at the libertarian is not longer an effective tool to diminish their influence. The Statists are now openly attacking and fighting both libertarians and libertarian ideas like the Rule of Law, Freedom of Speech, natural rights, etc. This is good news, as the next step is Libertarian Victory.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Is Detroit Our Starnesville?

By Tom Rhodes, 7/24/2013

Detroit reminds me of a quote from the Grail Knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, "He chose poorly." In the movie the evil bastard who "chose poorly" shrivels up and turns to ancient ruins because of his "enlightened" choice, so too has Detroit. Indy who didn't choose poorly did not suffer the same fate. Just like in the movie those who "chose wisely" don't suffer the same fate, nor should they.

Detroit is the manifestation of those who "chose wisely" going Galt. It is precisely the condition and outcome that result from the reality of implementing the utopian ideas of so called progressives. Detroit mirrors Starnesville, a car-manufacturing city that became a ghost town after experimenting with socialism. You can read about it in Ayn Rand's 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged."

The federal government and tax payers from the other 50 states should under no circumstances bail out Detroit. It should be allowed to go bankrupt. The citizens of Detroit should be allowed to suffer the consequences of their choices: specifically their voting decisions. It is the citizens of Detroit who are at fault for Detroit's demise not the rest of the nation. Every single voter in Detroit who voted for politicians who expanded the government of Detroit is responsible.

Let's hope Detroit isn't the indicator that Starnesville was in the novel. In Atlas Shrugged, the demise and failure of Starnesville was the harbinger of the collapse of the entire society. Detroit and its current bankrupt condition is the direct result of who the people of Detroit elected. Those who were disproportionately taxed and had to pay for the utopian ideas of the elected leaders, when it was obvious that their vote for responsible government and free enterprise were ineffective, voted with their feet; they moved. The auto industry built plants in Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, etc. they quit building and expanding in Detroit. The empty wasteland of factories in Detroit is evidence of the reality of implementing enlightened ideas of the statist leftists. The voters of these states, who elected people that created laws and an environment more inviting to auto manufactures than Detroit and Michigan did, are not responsible and should not have to bail out the voters who embraced the empty promises of Democrats.

Detroit since 1962 has been run by Democrats. Since then it has made itself uncompetitive with other parts of the USA and the world. The bankruptcy of Detroit is what will happen to the entire country if we continue to elect "progressives." Jobs going overseas are a direct result of the government tyranny and easily predicted (read Atlas Shrugged). Utopian thinking of how things should be; how people should act; and their enlightened redistribution of wealth, is emotional not rational thought. Leftist thinking ignores the history of mankind and the very nature of man. The increase in the size and scope of government and the increase in oppression of productive people is manifesting itself in the actions of people going Galt. Actual participation in the labor force is at historic lows. Expansion of business is at historic lows, hording capital rather than investing is the order of the day. Protecting existing wealth (usually off shore) is now more important than using that wealth industriously.

The entire premise of progressives and their leadership is that they the ruling elite know how things should be, and by virtue of their enlightened understanding they should have the power and authority to determine how property is distributed regardless of any individual's wants, desires, talents, and labor. If they had the power they would control and eliminate the right to travel, and the right to sell and use private property. People exercising these rights, moving and taking their money and stuff with them, has lead to a mass exodus of Detroit. My family escaped Detroit in 1972. Utopian thinking Democrats became a majority in Detroit, elected Detroit's leaders, and chased away all the producers and borrowed and spent Detroit into bankruptcy. Let them suffer the consequences of their choices and actions, and let it be a model to every city and voter what happens when you elect big union progressive Democrats and let them implement their "progressive" plans.

The result of the implementation of Democrat's policies is clear. In half a century it turned Detroit from arguably the most industrious city in the world with the highest wages, into a third world hellhole where less than half the population is self supporting. Starnesville was the harbinger of the collapse of society in Atlas Shrugged, is Detroit our Starnesville?

Only an Ass Could Ignore the Elephant in the Room.

By Tom Rhodes, 7/20/2013

As I and many others have pointed out, the historic norm for mankind is for a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation. The one thing that historically differentiates the haves from the have-nots is the ability to acquire and control property. The most fundamental property being one's self. Owning your self is not the norm for most people throughout human history. In fact, even today through most of the world property rights are minimal.

Your right to vote, or right to go to church, or right to speak your mind, is all meaningless if you don't have the right to own stuff. If you own something, provided you don't infringe upon somebody else's property rights you should be able to use that property or dispose of it as you see fit. If you own a computer and want to smash it into little pieces you can it's your computer. If you own yourself then the product of your labor is yours, to trade, use, or give away as you see fit. If you own yourself then what you put into your body is your business, if you choose to put poison and destroy yourself, like smashing your computer with a sludge hammer it's your property use or misuse it as you see fit. Of course if you have a right to private property so do others, and you have no right to their property except through voluntary trade.

We know what cultural traits and behaviors lead to success: People who get an education and do their best in school, then get a job, don't use alcohol or drugs more than occasionally, don't engage in criminal behavior, go to church, and get married before having kids. These are the common behavioral norms of people who are successful in modern cultures. We also know that the best way to promote and reward these behaviors is the equal application of the rule of law; allowing people to prosper or suffer depending on how well they voluntarily serve their fellow man. The one common thread to success for individuals and society is protecting and establishing property rights. Protecting and establishing private property rights has lead to more wealth creation and a higher standard of living everywhere it's been established. From the USA to Chile to China nothing has ever created a higher standard of living than private property rights and the economic freedom that resulted from protecting private property. The middle class doesn't exist and never existed until private property rights for all people under the equal application of the rule of law was established. No country without strong private property rights has a strong middle class.

Now the problem, utopian thinkers who emotionally want everybody to be happy and well off look at the objective truth that not all people use the private property they have and amass property wisely, thus not every person generates enough private wealth to be well off. This unequal outcome is primarily result of observable actual differences in peoples physical, emotional, and intellectual abilities, and secondarily the result of interference from government in their use of private property. All people are not in reality equal, we all have different needs, wants, desires, drive, and abilities. Utopian thinkers don't deal with how things are, they deal with how they think things ought to be. Nobody should go hungry. Nobody should have to live without XYZ, etc. Because the emotions tied with seeing some people do better than others, they ignore the behaviors and other natural differences and think that "only if everybody would XYZ" then nobody would suffer. Because not everybody makes wise decisions or has the same natural ability of others, they think that some "enlightened" people should make the decisions for everybody thus nobody would be allowed to make bad decisions and the result is nobody would suffer and everything would be alright.

They believe that their good intentions and desire for a good outcome and their superior insight should be enough for everybody to accept their dictates. Thus they outlaw fast food in certain neighborhoods because people might choose to eat unhealthy. Thus they outlaw cooking with lard in restaurants. Thus they mandate you wear a helmet when you ride your bike. They think that because you might not use your body (or other property) in a manner they deem wise, that their wisdom supersedes your property rights, thus negating your right to use or dispose of your property as you deem best.

They also notice the unfair advantages that some people have and want to fix it too. It's not fair that you were born 6'8" tall and can run, jump, and accurately throw an object better than others. It's not fair that your natural ability is so good at running, jumping, and throwing objects that lots of people are willing to pay to watch you run, jump and throw stuff. You ability to parley your superior natural talents into wealth results in an unequal distribution of the wealth, thus to make things fair the utopian thinkers take a disproportionate amount of your amassed wealth that you earned through fair trade with your fellow members of society and gives it to those who can't run, jump, and throw as well, so that they don't feel slighted. They feel that they know better who should have what, and that the private trade of individuals for their private property should be controlled by those with superior insight, because protection of private property and freely trading your property with others will result in unequal distribution, and they equal distribution regardless of ability and effort.

The very idea that everybody should have equal protection under the law and have the ability to own and control private property doesn't sit well with the old ruling elite. Be they kings or popes or pharaohs or dukes or emperors or dictators they work under the assumption that they have the right and authority to determine how all property, including the labor of those who live in the area they control should be used. By divine right or merely through the right of might they work under the assumption that what those who live in their sphere of control are under their complete control. The idea is that the rules they impose upon the masses are for the masses and not the ruling elite. The words "We The People" and the idea that the government is a servant to the masses, not the other way around is repugnant, and a slap in the face to the ruling elite by mere peasants. The ruling elite have been trying for 2 centuries to eliminate the idea that the people can or should have control of private property because private property and the ability to pass it down to progeny, dramatically reduces the power and influence of a governing sovereign. Paying off cronies with the property of serfs has been a favored way of amassing power for the ruling elite for all of history.

Today we have utopian leftists and corporate cronies working together creating a system of rules that apply to the masses and not the enlightened ruling elite to reduce private property rights and once again put concentrate power it the few ruling elite who are enlightened and know best how the masses should live. The stagnation and decline of the middle class and perpetual dependency of our poor is because of the effective denigration of property rights. Progressive asses are the useful idiots manipulated by corporate pachyderms to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a despotic oligarchy and return mankind to her natural state of a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation.

Truth isn’t Politically Correct.

By Tom Rhodes, 7/19/2013

Like it or not we are in the middle of race debate in the USA. The narrative from the press and the statist ruling elite in DC is clear; White America is a brutal and racist. The overt claim is that white people are infringing upon the civil rights of blacks. The solution proposed by the media and government is that we need more government interventionism to end racism. That is the politically correct discussion of race in the USA. The problem is the facts and objective observable truth don’t fit the narrative of those who want more statism.

The actions of statists in Washington and the Media appear to be wanting to create a racial divide in the USA not reduce or eliminate it. Right now we are seeing lots of media induced rage based on politically correct lies not verifiable, observable, objective truth. If we look at data, we see that the truth is not what the Statist Media and ruling elite are proclaiming.

These are verifiable objective facts:

New York City, blacks comprise 24% of the city population

according to witnesses and victims from January to June 2008, 83% of all gun assailants were black, 15% were Hispanic and only 2% were other races including white.

98% of every mugging and murder in NYC are committed by black or Hispanic criminals.

85% of NYC stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.

The majority of police in NYC are minorities.

The overwhelming majority of victims of NYC crime are black.

Where is there any objective evidence in those facts of white-on-black racism???

Let’s look at national statistics about interracial crime, white-on-black attacks and the reverse. These are verifiable objective facts:

Blacks make up about an eighth of the population.

FBI ‘single offender victimization figures’ for 2007 reports blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites.

FBI ‘single offender victimization figures’ for 2007 reports whites commited 55,685 crimes against blacks.

2007 FBI statistics report approximately 14,000 rapes of white women by African Americans.

2007 FBI statistics report ZERO rapes of black women by white Americans.

Fully half the victims of murder in the USA are black people. 96% of those murders were committed by another black.

Comparison of FBI statistics show that a black-on-white assault is 40 times greater than white-on-black assault.

Again: Where is there any objective evidence in those facts of white-on-black racism???

The politically incorrect truth is that ugly manifestation of interracial crime is clear. Any objective rational analysis interracial crime would only lead to one conclusion about racism in America. That conclusion is not politically correct. Black America is a brutal and racist.

When the Truth Doesn’t fit Reality

By Tom Rhodes, 7/17/2013

The objective truth is that the Media and Obama and the ruling elite don’t give a rat’s ass about the killing of young black men including Travon Martin. The objective truth is that only an eighth of the US population is black but half of all murder victims are black. There’s not a huge outcry because the overwhelming majority of the murderers who kill young black men are other young black men. Even they know that if you try to blame blacks killing blacks on whites you sound absurd. There is significant black on white violence across the country but that too is ignored. The only time there is ever an outcry from the main stream media, Obama, or the ruling elite, is if they can use it to promote the failed leftist notion that there is a white power structure looking to reinstate Jim Crow.

Once the media heard about an unarmed black teen getting shot by what they thought was a guy who was not arrested, and had the last name of Zimmerman, and they could blame a law they hate, stand your ground, they had a field day. Screw the facts this story provided a narrative to promote their statist mantra. A white guy with a Jewish sounding name shot a black guy and didn’t get arrested, it has to be racism. NBC got the 911 tapes and to further their narrative, they selectively edited the tape to make the “white” guy sound racist. The “white” guy turns out to be Hispanic, so the press invents a new race “White Hispanic.” ABC gets the police video, but it too supports the self-defense claim which doesn’t fit the narrative so they publicize a “low resolution” version that makes it look like he wasn’t injured. During the trial a black witness uses clearly racial epithet that has to be explained away. In general the facts didn’t fit the story they wanted to tell, so the press edited, manipulated, and lied to tell the story the wished were true regardless of what was actually true.

Obama opines that if he had a son, his son would be like Travon. We know that both Obama and Travon were dopers, Obama admitted it in his autobiography and drugs were found in Travon’s system. Maybe this explains why evidence of the fact that Travon was a thug who liked to fight, and his criminal history was suppressed and covered up? Maybe Obama is more like Travon than he wants to admit, people whose crimes are covered up by the government because they don’t fit the narrative. You might say “like father like son.”

It is clear that the case was a political tool used to further the narrative that America is a racist country. The media and power elite used this case to demagogue the public and play on their emotions to advance their statist agenda. The facts keep getting in the way, like the reality that America is not a brutal and racist country that needs more government interventionism to end racism; or that white people who believe in judging people by the content of their character not the color of their skin, are not a threat to black success. They ignore the problems in the black community which in our inner cities is murdering itself at third world rates. They ignore the evidence of vast amounts of black on white violence. They look for and grab at the hugely rare incidence of white on black crime, and in this case, actually manufacture white on black crime to further their idea that all people need more government control of their lives, which is the fundamental change to the system Obama and leftists want.

Here are some facts. If you’re white in the USA your chances of being murdered are about as low as any industrialized nation in the world, the reason is cultural. If you’re black in the USA and live in a major US city your chances of being murdered are much higher and look typical of third world murder rates, the reason is cultural. If Obama and the press really cared about the murder of young black men they would be trying to make fundamental changes in the subculture of urban black communities that is murdering itself at third world rates instead of trying to blame it on the part of our culture that isn’t murdering itself at horrific rates. They don’t care, the only thing Obama and progressives care about is concentrating more power in government hands. The Zimmerman case is an excuse to attack individual rights that get in the way of more government power.

Volt Owners are Tax Dodging Scum

By Tom Rhodes, 7/14/2013

Chevy Volt a bad idea in 1913 a bad idea in 2013. For well over 100 years auto makers have been trying to sell electric cars as a better solution to the internal combustion engine. Here’s an ad from 2013.


For 100 years the technology has failed. The promises of better batteries soon to be developed that will be cheap to eliminate the range and other problems of the electric car in a century of development have never materialized. Battery tech has come a long way in the past 100 years but the Internal Combustion engine hasn’t been at a standstill either. The economic advantage of the EV vs IC is fiction. It’s a simple matter of chemistry; the energy density electric storage is not competitive with the energy density of gasoline. Of course the energy density of ethanol, hydrogen, propane, NG, etc, also make them less competitive, but for this article we’ll just look at costs over time and use of electricity vs gasoline.

Compare the Chevy Volt to the Chevy Cruz, they are the same platform vehicle made by the same company. We’ll use 3 year walk away leasing prices to determine the cost per mile of owning the EV power vs same car configured with IC power.

You can Leases for the Cruze for about $149/mo for 36 months with $1200 at signing, the Cruze gets 28 mpg city and 42 MPG hwy. Total cost to lease for 36 months is $6600. Testing shows the Cruze in the real world gets around 30mpg. So to drive it 12,000 miles a year for 3 years if Gas costs an average of $3.62 cents the total fuel costs over the life of the lease will be about $4400. Total cost of lease and fuel to drive the Cruze for 3 years is $11,000.

Leases for the Volt are now about $269 a month for 36 months, with $2,399 due at signing, the Volt get 38 miles per charge (we’ll assume you always drive less exactly 38 miles between charges and never use gasoline). Total cost to lease for 36 months is $12,100. The cost per charge for electricity is about $1.25, simple math shows electric cost for the 36,000 miles over the lease is about $1200. Total cost of lease and fuel to drive the Volt for 3 years is $13,300.

Comparison is simple cost to own and drive the same basic car IC vs EV and the conclusion is the same today as 100 years ago. Electric is a loser, over a 3 year lease a Volt costs over $2000 more to own than a Cruze and that’s only if you never put gas into the volt and limit yourself to 38 mile trips.

In the real world, people will drive the Volt on its gas engine, so spend more. Real world tests of the Volt using both Electricity and Gasoline it does admirably and gets around 60 mpg. So in the real world it’s fuel costs would be right hat half the Cruze’s fuel costs, totally about $2200. That means In the real world the Volt costs $4500 more over a 3 year lease to drive. The reality is that rationale people who need a car for transportation not to make a political statement, when given the choice between two pretty much identical vehicles will choose the one that cost’s less. GM sales and leases of the Cruze vs. Volt pretty much tell the story, in the real world the Volt goes up in flames.

Not only does buying a volt demonstrate you’re an economic idiot, if you own a Volt you’re a tax dodger just as guilty as GE or any other corporation that “evades” paying taxes. Not just the thousands of wasted tax dollars as an incentive to get you to make a stupid economic decision, but for every electric mile the Volt driver get’s the benefit of not paying taxes for the road use of her vehicle the same as Cruze driver pays, because of gasoline taxes. Using the same logic that slams Apple and GE for avoiding taxes, leasing a Volt makes you an immoral tax evader. An average of around 50 cents per gallon in taxes is paid over that same 3 year 36,000 mile lease lease driving a Cruze instead of a Volt. Volt drivers evades from $300 to $600 in taxes that the driver of the Cruze pays but still get’s to use the road that the Cruze driver’s taxes pay to maintain.

If the EV had to compete on a level playing field against IC we wouldn’t even have this discussion. The Detroit Electric Car tried to compete without government help, it lost, and it’s been out of business for 80 years. The physics of energy density cannot be beat by the desires of greenie-wienies who care about how they think things “should” be now how things are. To make them feel better about their stupid economic decision to buy a Volt, they are allowed to join the ranks of Microsoft, Apple, GM, GE, and millionaires everywhere and screw the people out of tax dollars; so not only are Volt owners economic idiots, they’re also tax dodging scum.

Why Dealing With Cops is Frustrating

By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2013

YouTube is full of videos of cops doing stupid stuff. Not just abusive, but just plain stupid. Clearly the volume of video available demonstrating that LEO's clearly don't know the law and making obviously erroneous statements is evidence that at best police officers are of average intelligence. Consider the volume and complexity of modern law, it is not fair to expect these guys to know it or understand it. So be careful when dealing with LEO and give them a break, they just don't have the IQ to understand the constitution and its ramifications. It's not their fault; you see Federal Courts have validated policies that exclude the hiring of smart people to be cops.

The ruling elite don't want smart cops who know and understand the Constitution, they only want and hire people of average intelligence who will do what they are told' smart thinking people need not apply.

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

...

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

The massive volume of video evidence at YouTube alone validates the idea that at few cops are capable of understanding the abstract Constitutional aspects of their job. Reading this article probably indicates that you are of above average IQ, it's overtly libertarian and not widely advertised, thus to find this article you are probably looking for news and commentary that is not reduced to the lowest common denominator. So for you the above average intellect I offer some advice if you have to deal with LEO's.

Try to focus on the practical aspects of the situation so that they can follow. Don't offer any additional information, be kind and polite and remember you are probably dealing with a person who has at best average intelligence.

When you are talking with cops remain calm and plan on having to teach them, but remember to speak slowly and try not to get perturbed at having to repeat yourself a lot. When you ask "am I being detained?" and they don't answer but instead ask you a question, it's probably because they didn't understand why you or what you asked. Substituting "am I free to go?" this reduces the vocabulary to single syllables which are easier for them to understand. Be polite and patient it's not their fault they were genetically screened for no more than average intelligence. Ask again and again until they answer, but be patient and kind.

Understand that they think because they "passed" the test to become a law enforcement officer, that they believe they are smarter than those who didn't take or didn't pass the test; they probably haven't considered the fact that smart people "fail" the test. Knowing this it's incumbent upon you to consider the ramifications of making statements/questions like, "I do not consent to a search officer; can you articulate specific probable cause of a specific crime and exactly what items you are looking for?" This is long sentence with many polysyllabic words, so the probability is that the abstract ramifications articulated will produce intellectual and emotional conundrums that the LEO may not be able to ameliorate into their modest intellect and thus elicit a negative emotional response. Although exercising your rights may be legal and principled, frustrating people who have firearms and are legally immune from most prosecution if they use them may not be the wisest course of action.

As a principled libertarian exercising your rights, you expect that relative simplicity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which are clearly limiting government and not you, to be understood by law enforcement. That is not the case; the courts have ruled that there is a "rational basis" to purposely selected LEO without high IQ, thus insuring that cops have a propensity of accepting and enforcing the edicts of the ruling elite not critical thinking. This is why it is often frustrating exercising your rights with today's law enforcement community, they were not selected for their ability to think.

Results of Obama’s Edict to Research Gun Violence are In

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2013

Earlier this year in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Obama issued an edict (Executive Order) commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. The clear goal was to produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, so that he could garner support of the American People, based on fact, fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation. This preliminary survey is out, you haven’t read about it in the Lame Stream Press because the results aren’t what liberal statists wanted. In fact the results pretty much back up what Pro-Gun Americans have been saying.

The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. Read it yourself HERE. The CDC’s research and numbers pretty much justify of pro-gun rights arguments made over the past couple years.

First and most importantly the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not a result of crime. The CDC numbers report < 39% of firearm deaths are crime related, and those include deaths of the bad guy by cops or private citizens. Most firearm deaths, 61%, are suicides, a tragedy, but there is no epidemic of gun crime. In fact the survey notes that overall gun related deaths have decreased dramatically.

The results note that “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective,” saying that the guns turned in during gun by backs are not typical of guns used in crimes. So much for the effectiveness of using tax payers money to “get guns off the streets.”

Here is some big news that the Press and Government aren’t shouting about; guns “are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. 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.” This conclusion pretty much destroys hoplophobe arguments that there are better ways than a gun for self protection. Based on gun sales over the past few years, it is safe to say that the public is well aware of this fact.

The survey goes on to note “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. 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.”

The data is clear, self defense using firearms by ordinary citizens is both effective and common. Excluding the benefits of self defense in future studies on gun violence would clearly diminish the credibility and acceptance of any such studies results.

Why Obama, Biden, Congress, and the Press aren’t shouting about the results of Obama’s Edict to the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States, it’s because the results support pro-gun arguments. Our founding Fathers were right when they restricted the government, not the people, in regards to keeping and bearing arms.

US Court Rules Discrimination is Legal

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2013

US federal courts have ruled that if you can show a "rational basis" for discrimination against persons with a common genetic trait, that such discrimination is legal. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision claims it's reasonable to not hire men of above average IQ in order to reduce the expense of job turnover. Because just like skin color, eye color, height, sex, etc. no individual has control over their genetic makeup, which includes IQ, the court has effectively said that it's ok to not hire somebody if there is a "rational basis" that such genetic variance can lead to increased job turnover. This is an interesting new standard which if applied equally, effectively legalizes descrimination.

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

"This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class," Jordan said today from his Waterford home. "I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had "shown a rational basis for the policy." In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Based on this court precedent it is rational to consider persons common a genetic traits in hiring as a means to reduce job turn over. This begs some interesting but politically incorrect questions.

Does this court ruling overturn the court rulings that force cities to dumb down civil service tests for firefighters etc. when not enough minorities pass the test? If getting too high a grade is "a rational basis" to exclude somebody from the job pool, why isn't too low a grade?

Does this mean that because there is a statistical increase in the chances that persons with a common genetic trait, like skin color, being imprisoned (which puts a damper on going to work), that to avoid job turnover it's rationale not to hire young black men?

Does this mean that because there is a statistical increase in the chances that persons with a common genetic trait, like sex, leads to increase in leaving a job to raise children that that to avoid job turnover it's rationale not to hire women of child bearing age?

Lucky for us that the rule of law is dead in the USA, if the government actually enforced the rule of law equality for everybody then sexism, racism, ageism, etc. are now all legal. Because our nation has abandoned the rule of law you don't have to worry, it only applies to Politically Correct discrimination. The way our government works, the law will be applied to allow discrimination against smart white Judeo/Christian men.

Face it! Islam is Incompatible with Modern Civilization

By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2013

Last weekend we read about Muslims once again attacking school children, burning down school dorms with the students inside; a horrific act of violence done in the name of Islam. Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization - PERIOD. What we should call the 88% of ordinary Egyptian Muslims who favor killing 'apostates' from Islam? Civilized?

What is it going to take for us to realize that we are not at war with "terrorists" but there is a global jihad declaring an Islamic war against Western Civilization? Mass slaughter of children across the globe, beheadings in the streets of London, and Bombings at US Sporting events killing innocent children aren't enough?

Islamic militants attacked a boarding school before dawn Saturday, dousing a dormitory in fuel and lighting it ablaze as students slept, survivors said. At least 30 people were killed in the deadliest attack yet on schools in Nigeria's embattled northeast.

Authorities blamed the violence on Boko Haram, a radical group whose name means "Western education is sacrilege." The militants have been behind a series of recent attacks on schools in the region, including one in which gunmen opened fire on children taking exams in a classroom.

The press and our government is absurdly and purposefully obtuse. Islam is not compatible with Modern Western Civilization. Considering just our 1st amendment and you see that Islam is not willing to compromise on the same fundamentals that Americans aren't willing to compromise.

Separation of Church and State - ultimate goal of Islam is to bring all nations under its Islamic religious law (Sharia) now during this age of man, even if it means bringing down existing governments, the very first entry in our Bill of Rights clearly states the exact opposite. Islam is not compatible with the Bill of Rights. Look right here in the USA where in Dearborn Michigan, being a Christian can and is grounds to eliminate the First Amendment and legal preference is given to Islam over Christianity by the government.

The fact of the matter is the often libertine exercise of libertarian rights of Modern Western Civilization is intolerable with the way Muslims think. Worldwide call to execute those critical of Islam, and as Theo van Gogh knows, the desire and willingness to murder others for mere expression of an opinion they don't like. Muslim riots in Europe are now so common place they barely make the news here in the States. Consider what you think of as the hallmarks of a Civilized Society and then answer the following:

Do members of a Civilized Society riot and call for the murder of artists over political cartoons?

Does a Civilized Society blame the victim of gang rape and punish her with 70 lashes and imprisonment? Does that same "Civilized Society" then increase the punishment to over 100 lashes for the audacity of the rape victim to appeal the decision?

Do members of a Civilized Society behead people they don't like on public streets?

Do members of a Civilized Society torch school dormitories roasting children alive?

Does a Modern Civilized Society consider stoning and chopping off limbs as acceptable punishment for even non-violent crimes?

Does a Modern Civilized Society execute those who proselytize non-Islamic beliefs?

Does a Modern Civilized Society live in a state of perpetual war against all who deny, that Mohamed is the prophet of God?

Does a Modern Civilized Society demand that all non-Muslims either convert, pay an onerous tax (jiyza), or face execution?

The answer to all these questions is NO, those are not the acceptable actions of the people of a civilized society, they are however the accepted actions of Muslims. Some Muslims may claim otherwise, that they don't believe those things are just. But taken in context, including the teachings of Islam that say it is acceptable to deceive infidels, coupled with the overt oppression by Muslims of others worldwide and violent actions against those who don't believe in Islam, the words of so called "moderate Muslims" are hollow. Islam is not compatible and will not "compromise" with Modern Western Civilization. Japan doesn't have the rioting and huge problems Europe has with Muslims. Japan's method of dealing with Islamists may very well be the most effective method, but that solution is not palatable to American ideas of Liberty.

How does Western Civilization deal with Islamic culture that won't accept the basic tenets of society; including equality under the law, the rule of law, and individual rights, a Culture that has proven it is willing to use the most uncivilized violence imaginable to instill terror in all those who won't submit to Islamic beliefs?

The Left vs Reality

By Tom Rhodes, 7/5/2013

Fundamentally the political left cannot accept reality and observable truth. The real world doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of how the world “should be.” They see the real world as broken and needing to be changed, ignoring the fact that their preconceived ideas on how the world “should be” may be what are broken.

Equality between sexes, races, geography, has never been observed and does not exist anywhere in the world today or in the history of the world. There is zero evidence of equality actually existing. The fact is, if you believe in evolution, then equality is not something you can justify. Evolution produces unequal outcomes, not better or worse outcomes but unequal outcomes.

Fact, people of east African descent disproportionately win marathons. Fact in USA, where blacks make up around 13% of the population, they comprise about 80% of the professional NBA players. Fact in the USA white people of Northern European Ancestry make up a disproportionate percentage of professional NHL players. Over the past 15 years a totally out of proportion percentage of American spelling bee winners have their ancestry in India. For generations the best design and manufacture of optical lenses come from Germany and Japan. Equality just doesn’t exist – PERIOD!

In the real world people can and do capitalize on their inequality. The left however desperately wants equality, even in absence of its existence. They see some people getting rich as proof of evil, not evidence of scientific fact that some people have different skills than others. The see some groups being more violent than others as evidence that they are being suppressed, rather than they have a different unequal culture that is more accepting of violence as a means of solving differences.

“The agenda of the left -- promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for "rights" to what other people have produced -- is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.” ~ Thomas Sowell

The ideas of “equality” have been put to the test. The moral call for equality is a background for the political agenda of the left. This call for equality they claim will lift the poor out of poverty, end wars, and make the world a better place. This is the same claim that ruling oligarchies has made for centuries all around the world. It has also failed for centuries. Those nations which mandated equality, strictly controlled by ruling elite who knew best how to make things equal, are dead. From the French Revolution, to the Boxer Rebellion to the rise of the USSR and Communist China and the other ”equality” based societies created in history all resulted in the same outcome; mass starvation and mass murder.

Because the observable truth and history, clearly shows that equality does not exist, the left only use emotions to promote their failed ideas on how the world should be. If the preconceived idea of the left was right, then history would show that central planning by educated elites with the power of government to force their would have been more vastly more successful than economies based on individual liberty and free trade with millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests.

The radical idea that has proven to provide the most people with the highest standard of living is embracing inequality. Liberty results in unequal outcomes, but those outcomes are generally better for everybody. The only equality that should and can exist in culture is the idea that all people should be treated equally under the law; this is to prevent oppression, allowing all people to use the advantages they have by being unequal from their fellow man. This is an idea that is based on reality and observable truth.

The reality of people not being equal in IQ, disposition, drive, strength, speed, coordination, social skills, size, beauty, and all other capabilities, results in unequal outcomes in life. This isn't fair; to bad, life isn't fair. Because life's outcomes don’t fit with the emotional desires of how the left thinks things "should" be, they emotionally attack it leaving reason on logic behind. Human equality is a myth. I challenge you to prove me wrong by showing some scientific rationale to prove equality actually exists.

Tocqueville’s warned that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom, saying:

"The…sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle."

July 4 1776

Independence Day then is not a celebration of government, but a regular reminder of the necessity to reject corrupt, abusive government.

Declaration of a Radical Idea, that government not the people is limited.

---

July 4, 1776
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

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

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

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

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

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

— John Hancock

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Leave the Republican Party – It left you 20 years ago.

By Tom Rhodes, 7/3/2013

If you believe in limited government, the protection of individual rights, the Constitution, and appreciate and believe our founding fathers were right then you should leave the GOP and join the LP. Ask yourself what does the Republican Party Stand for? What is the mission and goals of the GOP other than crony protection?

From the actions of the Republicans you can safely assume the goals of the GOP are as follows:

To insure the surveillance of every citizen in the USA.

To meddle in the affairs of other countries.

To increase spending every year slightly slower than than the Democrats.

To grant the president tyrannical powers exempt from the rule of law.

To ignore scandals by the federal government.

To allow the IRS to neuter any grass-roots political group that doesn’t support statism.

To appoint Supreme Court Justices with no moral or legal bearings.

To enable unlimited migration from third world countries to the USA.

To ignore laws restricting the Debt Limit, and raise the limit whenever it’s inconvenient.

To constantly grow the size and scope government, just do it a little bit more slower than the other guys.

To protect big business at the expense of individual rights.

To boldly proclaim, “We’re not as bad as the other guys.”

Those are obvious goals of the Republican Party, as clearly demonstrated by their actions. They obviously no longer have the principles of their platform. You can see the transparent spinelessness of the ruling elite in the GOP, who are totally clueless as to the principles and ideas of their constituency. They exist merely to keep existing GOP leadership in office – PERIOD! They are nearing extinction because of RINO leadership. No rational person can conclude that liberals like John McCain and Mitt Romney represent the rank and file of the GOP. It has become the Party of the Statist Corporation, by the Statist Corporation and for the Statist Corporation.

You Mr. and Mrs. Republican, haven’t bought into Obama’s terrifying goals to “fundamentally transform America” into some kind of statist utopia. But the statism-lite offered by the GOP isn’t a reasonable alternative to Obama’s vision. Mr. and Mrs. Republican you are looking for a party that will stand up for the Constitution, stand up for the rule of law, stand up for equal protection under the law, stand up for a government that protects individual liberty. You want a party to fight the presidential and judicial tyranny that is taking away your representation. You want a part that will fight the anti-American concept of unlimited government.

In 2010, you got together with your fellow believers in what was America, formed grass roots “TEA Parties” and gave a stunning victory to the Republicans. Here in Florida you fell for the GOP lies and ignored the consistent warnings of the LPF, you elected Marco Rubio, only to be betrayed immediately as he is just another stooge of the Republican establishment. He and the entire GOP have and do hold you in contempt. Quit supporting them.

You don’t need to leave the Republican Party, It left you 20 years ago. The GOP has no use for grass roots believers in limited government. The GOP has no use for the idea of your Founding Fathers. The GOP has no use for our history of individual freedom and responsibility. The GOP has no use for you.

Check out the LPF platform, I’m sure you’ll find it’s more in line with what you believe than what the actions of the Republican Party have shown you. The Libertarian Party of Florida is not your grandfathers Libertarian Party; Being for less government is not being for Anarchy; Being against abuses by the police is not being anti-law enforcement; Being against failed prohibition laws is not promoting drug use; Saying the government has no business in your bedroom is not being anti-family. The Republican lies about Libertarians are just that Lies to try and keep you in the party that has abandoned you. The Libertarian Party of Florida is the Party of Principle and does have use for and does appreciate your views. In fact the LPF promotes and defends the following principles:

Recognizing absolute freedom of speech, religion, and association

Demanding Constitutionally-limited government

Ensuring minimal taxation and balanced budgets

Defending property rights

Asserting sovereignty of the State from unconstitutional federal interference

Asserting sovereignty of the Republic from unconstitutional international interference

Upholding the Second Amendment and the absolute right to self defense

Promoting a true free market economy

Defending personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment

Promoting strong national defense through a Constitutional foreign policy

Ending government corruption

Ensuring no individual, corporation or government is above the rule of law

Ending prohibitions on all personal activities that do not infringe upon the rights of others.

The GOP left you a long time ago, the LPF can and will restore your liberty and freedom from the uniform statist tyranny now offered by both the Democrats and your Republican Party. Find out how you can make a difference at www.lpf.org.