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

Monday, September 30, 2013

Obama Lied, You Can’t Keep Your Doctor or Insurance.

By Tom Rhodes, 10/1/2013

Contrary to Obama's promise, the truth of the bill that had to be passed to know what was in it, is huge numbers of people lost full time employment as their employers dropped health insurance for employees and cut hours. Those of us who kept our jobs are finding that we can't keep our doctor or even insurance as promised. Sarah Hurtubise of the Daily Caller reports on 10 states where you can’t keep your health care plan. Noting Obama’s famous promise ““If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Obama said that “If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have”

The truth doesn’t match Obama’s promise. Obamacare was passed based on lies and both Democrat and Republican votes. Throw them all out next election.

1) California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. The first bomb dropped in California with a mass exodus from the most populated state’s Obamacare exchange. Aetna, the country’s third largest insurer, left first in July and was closely followed by UnitedHealth. Anthem Blue Cross pulled out of California’s Obamacare exchange for small businesses as well.

Fifty-four percent of Californians expect to lose their coverage, according to an August poll.

2) Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system — which spans 13 hospitals including the St. Louis Children’s Hospital — will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. Anthem covers 79,000 patients in Missouri who may seek subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, but won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

3) Connecticut: Aetna, the third largest insurer in the nation, won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange in its own home state, where it was founded in 1850. The reason? “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers,” said Aetna spokesman Susan Millerick.

4) Maryland: 13,000 individuals covered by Aetna and its recently-purchased Coventry Health Care won’t be able to keep their insurance plans if they want Obamacare subsidies on the exchanges. Aetna and Coventry canceled plans to offer insurance in the exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

5) South Carolina: 28,000 people were insured by Medical Mutual of Ohio, SC’s second-largest insurance company, until it decided to leave the state entirely in July due to Obamacare’s “vast and quite complex” new regulations. Company spokesman Ed Byers said Medical Mutual’s patients would be switched over to United Healthcare plans instead.

6) New York: Aetna pulled out of New York’s exchange in late August in an effort to keep their plans “financially viable,” said Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener.

7) New Jersey: 1.1 million Aetna customers are at risk in New Jersey, where the leading insurer also won’t be a part of the exchange. Just 2,600 patients purchase individual plans with the company, but any looking to take advantage of subsidies on the exchange for unaffordable employer-based insurance won’t be able to do with Aetna.

8) Iowa: Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Iowa’s largest health insurer, decided not to offer plans in the Obamacare exchange. It sells 86 percent of Iowa’s individual health insurance plans.

9) Wisconsin: Two of the three largest insurers in the state won’t offer plans on the exchange. United Healthcare and Humana patients will have to get a new health insurer to buy insurance on Obamacare exchanges.

10) Georgia: Just five insurers are participating in Georgia’s Obamacare exchange. Medical Mutual of Ohio left Georgia and Indiana as well as South Carolina, due to Obamacare regulations. Aetna, along with Coventry, also decided against participating in the George health exchange.

Original Article Here

Western Denial

By Tom Rhodes, 9/30/2013

No doubt about it, we of the west are in denial. We are in a war against western civilization and won’t admit it. We try to say it’s not a religious war against the west, or against Christians, or non-Muslims, but that is a lie. The enemy has effectively neutered our press so rather than treat the war we are in as a war, we try to treat it like it’s some random groups of distraught teens acting out. It’s not, it’s war, and it’s getting bloodier and more violent and if we fail to treat it like a war we will lose.

In the past week hundreds of people have been targeted and killed because they were not Muslim. Not just in Kenya, but in Nairobi and Pakistan too. In Pakistan a historic Christian church was attacked, just because it was a Christian church. From Minnesota, American Muslims traveled to Kenya, joined a multinational force of Muslims, and committed gruesome torture and murder of shoppers. The shoppers were chosen for torture and execution because they were not Muslim. Those who believed in Islam were set free. The press portrayed the jihadists as thrill-seeking youth or “militants” and “gunmen,” not the uncivilized religious barbarians their actions more accurately describe.

The press is complacently evil; they cover up the motive of mass murder across the world, ignoring the plain, clear, and declared reasoning and goals of Islamists. The media is choosing to comply with Sharia, under such laws you cannot criticize Islam. The press will not say anything that would offend a Muslim, even if it is true. Shariah rules our mainstream press. With rare exceptions, the press has self-censored “Islam,” “Muslim” and “jihad.”

At the mall those who could name the mother of the prophet Muhammad were allowed to escape. The Muslim world supports such barbarism, not a single Muslim cares one iota for non-Muslims barbarically murdered. A simple act may have saved a good number of innocent people, but not one of those allowed to escape screamed out Muhammad’s mother’s name and give the answer to those being executed.

Muslims are trying to and successfully rebranding themselves.

Look up R4BIA and their goals and methods are quite clear. They plan on using terrorism, violence, and war to collapse Western values, end capitalism, glorify martyrdom, and eliminate the Jews in a new world that is run by Islamists.

This is the goal of Muslims, not all take part in the war, but rather than denounce the barbaric, murderous, evil acts of Islamic Terrorists, Muslims were marching down Madison Avenue in New York City waving the black flag of jihad. At the same time at a historic Church in more than 100 Christians were slaughtered during Sunday worship, and 140 were Christians were murdered Nigeria by Muslims, all in the cause of Islam.

Where are the Muslim protests against the barbaric torture, rape, murder and mutilation of innocent people who don’t share their faith??? If jihad wasn’t supported and at least accepted by American Muslims, you’d think that at least American Muslims would protest mass murder done in the name of their religion. If it were true that Islamic terrorists aren’t representative of Muslims, then they and their leaders would be righteously condemning terrorists acts. Instead they accuse anybody who would note that one religion has a virtual monopoly on the use of terrorism around the world, as an Islamophobe.

In response as a nation we get really stupid, so we don’t offend Muslims. In a poorly reported story the TSA has guaranteed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that TSA officials will only pat down Muslim women in the head and neck area. We know that female suicide bombers are not uncommon. In 2011 the U.S. Army released an intelligence report that noted: “Although women make up roughly 15 percent of the suicide bombers within groups which utilize females, they were responsible for 65 percent of assassinations.”

So all an militant Islamic Woman has to do to get bombs on a US airplane is wear a tent to cover up massive amounts of explosives she’s carrying (they call it a hijab); refuse full body scan on religious grounds, remind the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck, then walk onto the aircraft; and just as it reaches the runway, blow up herself and the plane killing hundreds, making the runway unusable and stopping all air traffic across the nation for weeks.

This is a true WTF moment.

Isn’t Homeland Security, who runs the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), supposed to prevent another 911, not make it easier for Islamic terrorists to repeat 911. The SOP should strip searching anybody who shows up at an airport in a hijab and refuse full body scan. There is no TSA exception for Catholic Nun’s in Habits, none of whom have ever been documented to suicide bomb innocents. If we believe in equality under law then there should be no exception for religious reasons to not pay for birth control, then what justifies Islamic women in hijabs, who “make up roughly 15 percent of the suicide bombers within groups which utilize females,” to be exempt from body scans and pat downs?

Western Civilization is in suicidal denial. Our Enemy has openly declared war, they’ve made their intentions clear, their barbaric, uncivilized, and violent actions validate the fact they are fighting this war. Our “free” press rather than offend our enemy, blames and labels anybody who accepts the words and actions of Islamists as indicative of their intentions as an Islamophobe. What’s more evil, the clear declaration of war and actions of our enemy, or the press who tries to cover it up?

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Public Schools are Cruel and Unusual.

By Tom Rhodes, 9/29/2013

Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .



Natural Born Killers

Two seventh-grade students in Virginia Beach, Va., were handed long-term suspensions Tuesday that will last until the end of the school year for playing with an airsoft gun in one of their front yards while waiting for the school bus. WAVY-TV reports that 13-year-old Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark will face an additional hearing in January to determine if they will be expelled for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because the guns were fired at two others playing in Caraballo’s yard. …Khalid claims he never took the toy gun to the designated bus stop or Larkspur Middle School, according to the report. Two other students who fired guns were also suspended.

Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”

One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”

Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.

Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.

  • Bureaucrats suspended a little boy for taking bites out of a pop tart in such a way that it was shaped like a gun.
  • Bureaucrats suspended a 7-year boy for pretending to throw a non-existent grenade on the playground.
  • Bureaucrats suspended a 6-year old boy in Maryland for making a gun shape with his finger.
  • Bureaucrats busted a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles.
  • A teacher in Rhode Island caught an 8-year old boy with some plastic toy army men.
  • Bureaucrats evacuated a school because an 11-year old boy made a motion detector for his science experiment.
  • Bureaucrats in Florida kicked an 8-year old boy out of school for a year because he had a plastic gun in his backpack.
  • In Virginia, not only did bureaucrats suspend a 10-year old boy for a toy gun, called the cops and had the kid arrested.
  • A third-grader got in trouble for having toy army men on his birthday cupcakes.
  • Two second-graders got suspended for holding pencils like they were guns.
  • Bureaucrats suspended a kindergartener for having a lego-sized toy gun.
  • Bureaucrats wanted a deaf child to change his sign-language name because it required him to shape his fingers in a way that resembled a gun.

    Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
  • Saturday, September 28, 2013

    Friday, September 27, 2013

    Contradiction of UN Arms Treaty

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2013

    Wednesday Obama directed Sec. of State John Kerry to sign the UN Arms treaty, in direct opposition to the Senate whose majority boldly told Obama that it would not ratify such a treaty. The treaty creates binding requirements for states to review cross-border contracts to ensure that weapons will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism, violations of humanitarian law or organized crime.

    Ummm. didn't Obama just send a few million dollars worth of Arms to Al-Qaida in Syria to support the "rebels?" The Jihadist groups that dominate the Syrian rebel coalition routinely commit human rights abuses violating humanitarian law. They are known for their terrorist tactics, beheadings, kidnapping, and all manner of barbaric violent lawless actions.

    Obama's actions make it obvious that he doesn't plan on honoring the part of the treaty that keeps arms from groups that commit terrorism, and other human rights violations. So why did he sign the treaty?

    Although the claims of Kerry and the Obama administration are that it doesn't affect private individuals and their Second Amendment rights, reading the treaty makes it clear that those assertions are lies. The words and actions of Obama are a matter of record and make it clear that his plans are to use the treaty to override the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Face it the USA can do whatever it wants and single country nor coalition has the strength to do anything about it, that is the primary reason we are hated internationally. International Law is useless and only binds countries like the USA, so called "rogue states" simply ignore it, because we willing allow ourselves to acquiesce. The goal of the UN is a total failure, there are more armed conflicts today than when it was formed, it doesn't work. UN treaties, and UN law, cannot and do not provide the US with any national security, and are unenforceable. Look at the member states who sit on the UN Human Rights Commission, no rational person could not know that it is a sham.

    http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21>Text of UN Arms Treaty

    Article 12 of the treaty makes it pretty clear that states should maintain national registries of small arms end users for minimum of one decade. Obama's actions are clear, they say, "I'm going to give arms to terrorists I like, but sign treaties that allow me to sidestep the restrictions the US Constitution put on me, to track the arms of US citizens. Registration will make it easier to disarm them."

    Newsflash - genocides do not occur, where the people are armed. Not the every disarmed society succumbs to a genocidal government, but armed societies don't suffer genocide. Ask Native Americans who we disarmed how well they faired? Or the Jews of Germany, etc.


    Want to read an unabashed libertarian SciFi action novel that beats up on the UN? Obama signing this god-awful treaty reminded me of the book,Rebel Moon, an updated version of Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress. This book is not targeted to the ladies, as it has lots of descriptions of individual battle, computer hacking, and other guy techie stuff. The target audience is clearly male gamers who aren't ignorant of politics (one of the authors, Voxday, is also the programmer/owner of software company that produced the game of the same name in the 90's). The basic plot is in the 21st century the Moon is colonized and produces much of the food needed for the world. The world is now governed by the United Nations, which is, well, the UN. After years of mismanagement and heavy-handed administration, the colonies revolt against the New World Order and declare themselves a free state. The premise since Heinlein first told it over 60 years ago is now cliché but like old John Wayne movies can and should be enjoyed for what they are not what they aren't.

    Tuesday, September 24, 2013

    Navy Yard Shooting Proves Gun Laws Work

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/24/2013

    The Navy Yard shooting last week prove that gun laws are working as designed. You simply don't understand the design. We were again lectured by Obama telling us mere citizens that we need to work harder for tougher gun laws if they want to end a plague of violence in schools, military installations and in certain cities. Of course all overwhelming preponderance of mass shootings and increases in gun violence share one common trait; they occur where there are tougher gun laws.

    Obama said, "I have an idea, let's keep doing the same thing over against and expect different results!" While wanting to do the very thing that has proven to increase gun violence; disarm law abiding citizens. Everywhere, in the USA or world, that the average citizen is disarmed results in increased violent crime. When you take away the ability and right of the people to defend themselves, they become easy prey. As the recent Harvard study showed, there is no evidence that increased gun control decreases violent crime.

    Washington DC, despite the Heller decision does everything it can to limit and discourage the law abiding members of its society from possessing firearms. Chicago and Detroit do the same. Schools are "gun free zones" as was the Aurora Colorado theater. Both Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard are made "secure" by making sure nobody (even trained soldiers) is armed. In the USA a "Gun Free Zone" is where mass shootings happen. These cities, institutions, and military installations have followed Obama's plan for guns, and they are where gun violence is increasing.

    As Obama paraphrased, it is often said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Disarming law abiding citizens has proven, repeatedly, all over the world NOT to lower or diminish violent crime, so more laws to disarm law abiding citizens and expecting less violence is clearly INSANE.

    Obama lamented, "We must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work." The problem is that position is observably and provably wrong. It is quite normal and observable that you see an increase in gun violence against innocent people where they are stripped of their means to protect themselves. To criminals and the insane, "Gun Free Zones" are invitations, virtual offers of play grounds where they can fearlessly raise mayhem, death and destruction, in an assured safe environment. Mass murders don't go to the shooting range or gun shows, those places aren't safe environments to engage in mass murder and mayhem.

    Obama has proven to be effective and marching toward his clearly stated goal. It has nothing to do with our safety, rather he is working to fundamentally change America, from a place where the people have the means and power to control the government, to a place where the people fear the government, and have no means to do anything about it. He is using emotional appeals based on the escalation of violence, to render the population impotent before the government which has militarized it police and will have a monopoly on force.

    We know how to make places and people more secure. Look at the President; he is made secure by having lots of armed men surrounding him. This is because we know criminals won't follow the law, so the Secret Service is armed and ready. The way to make our military bases, Navy Yards, and other places more secure is to have people armed in those places. The military is full of people who are trained with arms, let them carry at every job they do. It a soldier or other military member can't be trusted with a firearm then they shouldn't be in the military. If every member of the military was armed at all times, the Navy Yard would not have been attacked, period. Knowing that every other military person was armed would also prevent a criminal in the military from going Postal (no guns allowed in post office, hence a safe environment for criminally insane to shoot up the place).

    The Navy Yard Shooter was criminally insane, his supervisors knew it, the Navy Yard was warned about him by Rhode Island police, our government knew it, yet he wasn't even prosecuted for gun crimes previously. It looks as though the government, who could have legally done something about him, choose instead to leave a man they knew was bonkers, had violent tendencies, purchase a gun. The actions of the Government seem to indicate a desire to leave the violent criminally insane on the streets so that they can use their predictable violent acts as impetus to disarm the entire population.

    Think about it. Use the violent actions of the criminally insane as justification to disarm everybody. It would be cruel and inhuman to lock up the insane, and we can't label them insane, so Political Correctness dictates that the actions of the criminally insane justify disarming everybody.

    Obama concluded his speech with another fallacy, "No other advanced nation endures this kind of violence. None. What's different in America is it's easy to get your hands on a gun." Simply, ignoring the fact that back when you could mail order a machine gun without any government interference we were a less violent nation; and ignoring the fact that over the past 20 years we've increased the number of guns in private hands and decreased violent crime (including murder) except in cities with massive restrictions on private gun ownership.

    American history it is clear, the government creates laws and implements policies which have the "unintended" consequence of increasing violence, then statists in government use the increase in violence as an excuse to further restrict the liberties of the masses. Install Prohibition, resultant black market and gang violence results in abandoning the Second Amendment and making machine guns virtually illegal. Rather than mind our own business the Government bombs and restricts Islamic nations, we then see an increase in Islamic terrorism (911, Shoe Bomber, Ft. Hood, Boston Marathon Bombing, etc) followed by dumping the Fourth Amendment for our own "safety." The pattern is clear.

    Switzerland and Israel have three things in common, more guns per capita than the USA, no gun free zones, and very little gun violence. Obama and the other statist ruling elite in Washington are not insane; they know doing the same thing over and over will provide the same results. Thus the predictable results of their actions result in rare but horrific events; they then use those rare horrific events to provide them with emotional justification for more state power. The goal of Obama, (and the Republicans and Democrats) is not that of the state purpose of our government, which was established to protect the right to life, liberty, and property of all the people equally, their goal is to fundamentally change America by concentrating power with the ruling elite. Making America a place where the government need not fear the people, but the people fear the government. Tyranny is the goal, and it's a good goal, if your part of the ruling elite.

    Monday, September 16, 2013

    Basis of the Libertarian World View

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/16/2013

    I have a world view, you have a world view, everybody has a world view. As Libertarians we rightly attack and denounce the Left-Right flat line view of politics,. (see world's smallest political quiz), because it's a false world view. Everybody's world view is not just political but it is based on our beliefs about the nature of man, where he came from; what's his value; is he inherently good, bad, or something else? Everyone's world view is what forms the foundation for what they believe about a host of worldview issues: ethics, politics, economics and more.

    One of our founding fathers, William Penn, expressed his world view of society succinctly, saying;
    "The public has been deluded about the material aims of a few and the very existence of the hidden rulers who sit at the very pinnacle of power and see themselves as lords of this planet...

    If the men in leadership positions in the world do not know the objective of life then they are not capable of administering a peaceful society? If however they do know, then what we see happening in the world is the deliberate attempt to undermine the primary objective of life. The missing dimension in world politics is the spiritual dimension. The problems of life cannot be solved by material means. Modern civilization is missing the point of life. Human life is meant for understanding spiritual values. Real knowledge is knowing yourself, what you are, what God is...

    When men are not governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants."

    If you work under the singular belief that man is inherently good, such belief probably leads you to a underlying resentment for the institutions are responsible for evil. Since man isn't to blame, the rational conclusion is moral relativism, and outside influences like corporations, or economic status, or "the man" are the impudence for inherently good people to do bad things. This denies the clear evidence history has shown us, as we saw in the recent random murder in by a young man who was "bored." People are not inherently good, they are sinners.

    If you work under the singular belief that man is inherently bad, such belief probably leads you to a underlying hatred for individual liberty, as bad people without restrictions are responsible for evil. Since all men are evil, the rational conclusion is usually totalitarian control to protect people from their evil tendencies. This denies the clear evidence history has shown us as we see in not only the small random acts of kindness, but in such institutions as St. Jude's Research hospital, that cares for children with cancer and never sends a bill, or the billions of dollars and hours we donate to charities all around us; People are not inherently evil, they are made in God's Image, and he is good.

    Christianity, in the "age of enlightenment," lead our forefathers to a clear world view that resulted in both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, thus creating a divided government because they understood that although men cannot be trusted to govern themselves they must be trusted to govern themselves. So a divided government to dilute the evil any man may do and emphasize the good we can all do. What they believed and what it has been proven fact is that that freedom is critical to human existence. The number of quotes from Washington, Adams, etc made it clear that they believed that true freedom is only found in living by God's moral code.

    The world view of Society sways from one extreme (anarchy) to another (totalitarianism), all based on believing first man is good, then man is evil, struggling to understand why nothing works. This is one of the reasons that we in the USA are so divided on fundamental issues of economics and politics and even war. We are divided because we are so fundamentally confused about the nature of man. Our forefathers discovered one thing that has proven to work, the old story that the World rejects is that Man was created in God's image, were pronounced good, but committed evil acts (sinned) and fell from grace. Like Adam and Eve, created in God's image all mankind has eternal worth, but like Adam and Eve mankind is inherently flawed. This understanding with the understanding that man can find redemption is the world view that lead to the USA, an a world view that lead to more people living in relative luxury and wealth, where even the poor have an obesity problem, than any world view ever.

    William Penn's world view is why he is "the first great hero of American liberty. During the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics, Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary which protected freedom of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution which limited the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and guaranteed many fundamental liberties.

    For the first time in modem history, a large society offered equal rights to people of different races and religions. Penn's dramatic example caused quite a stir in Europe. The French philosopher Voltaire, a champion of religious toleration, offered lavish praise. "William Penn might, with reason, boast of having brought down upon earth the Golden Age, which in all probability, never had any real existence but in his dominions.'"**

    Today it can easily be argued that Ron Paul is the most pronounced representative of libertarianism. He is also an openly Christian man. Say what you want, but libertarian ideas and thought from William Penn to Ron Paul, are based on a Christian World View. Today we are seeing the collapse of a Christian World View, and the truth of John Adams observation, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."



    "In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." ~ Noah Webster

    "Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people." ~ George Washington

    "No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." ~ Samuel Adams

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Benjamin Franklin

    "Perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he introduces confusion and disorder into society thus where licentiousness begins, liberty ends." ~ Samuel West

    "It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence." ~ Alexander Hamilton

    "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." ~ James Madison

    "Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." ~ Patrick Henry

    "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." ~ John Adams

    "Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." ~ Fisher Ames

    "The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals." Samuel Adams

    "... the manners of the people in general are of the utmost moment to the stability of any civil society. When the body of a people are altogether corrupt in their manners, the government is ripe for dissolution. So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue." ~ John Witherspoon

    "Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them in great measure the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex and smooth, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they support them, or they totally destroy them." ~ Edmund Burke

    "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." ~ Edmund Burke




    Over 100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt told us what would happen when we embraced the idea that all religions and cultures were equal. "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    William Penn's now immortal words are coming true, "When men are not governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants."

    Thursday, September 12, 2013

    Politically Incorrect Version of Headlines

    Politically Incorrect Version of Headlines
    By Tom Rhodes, 9/12/13

    Here are a couple of Politically Correct Headlines, and how they could read and the contents be addressed if not for the invasive PC practices of the lame stream press.



    Politically Correct Washington Post Headline

    Children suffer from growing economic inequality among families since recession

    More Accurate but not PC version

    Recession Exacerbates Poverty of Children Living in Non-Traditional Families

    The article is clear, Children raised in traditional families with two parents are less likely to be poor regardless of race. What the article implies is that it isn't fair that rich people make wise decisions, so we must take money from the rich and give it to those who make poor life choices. What cannot be said is that if you're a high school dropout who chooses to have children when you are poor and single the chances are that your child will be raised in poverty. The author suffers from the emotional desire to never see people suffer poor life choices. So to meet the emotional desire seeks to force those who make wise life decisions to support those who don't. It ignores the simple fact that in today's world having a child is a choice, period. So choosing to have a child in a non-traditional living environment is in fact choosing to raise that child in poverty. The author wants security regardless of how individuals choose to live.

    The article makes it clear saying the evidence shows "men and women with high levels of education were more likely to be married. They were more likely to stay married. There were fewer instances of cohabitation or divorce than those with lower levels of education. And their children were much less likely to live in poverty and instead more likely to benefit from family stability, increased parent time and higher economic resources."

    WOW - the advice and example lived by the Leave it to Beaver Generation was right. Finish School, Get a Job, Get Married, then Have Children, Choosing to live your life in any other way dramatically increases you and your children's chances of being poor. Add in choosing to make it a habit to save and live a thrifty life and you will be wealthy.


    Politically Correct CBS Atlanta Headline

    Study: Men With Smaller Testicles Are Better Fathers

    More Accurate but not PC version

    Men w/ Smaller Balls act like Women

    The article is clear, Men with Balls "show a tendency for them to be less involved in things like changing diapers, bathing children, preparing meals, taking them to the doctor." The clearly female centric article works under the delusion that men acting like women make better fathers.

    The article offers an interesting conundrum for women it states clearly that "'The correlation is stronger between sperm count and sperm quality and testicle size,' Rilling explained. 'Bigger size, better, healthier sperm.'" So the obvious is backed up with research, healthier sperm is associated with Men with Big Balls. Women are left with the choice, a man who will produce better healthier sperm, implying better healthier children, or men who will help with nurturing duties but produce less healthy sperm implying inferior children. The politically incorrect but obvious fact is that the alpha male get's the woman, her biology overrides her heart, he body knows the testosterone laden man with balls offers her a better breeding opportunity; we are still animals after all. This offers an explanation of why women are hypergamous.

    What's a woman to do?

    Wednesday, September 11, 2013

    Fitting News for 9/11

    By Tom Rhodes 9/11/2013

    Twelve years ago today thousands of Americans were killed by Islamists, it was just the excuse our government needed to stomp out the Bill of Rights. No it wasn't a false flag conspiracy by the some secret society of ruling elite to prime the people of the USA to allow massive restrictions on their liberty. But it provided an excuse for the Patriot Act which resulted in the blatant abuse of our rights as described in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and even Third Amendments to our constitution. All these rights restrict the federal government; none of them grant the government the authority to ignore them in case of Terrorism or other compelling government interest.

    But today we wake up to the fact that in the USA it is still true that the ruling elite govern at the consent of the people. In Colorado two of the ruling elite were clearly told, "You Don't Have Our Consent," and fired. The issue was fundamental, State Sen. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, rejected the will of the citizens of Colorado and pushed through anti-Second Amendment laws in Colorado that the people Colorado made clear they didn't want. For that they were fired. We The People have sent a loud and clear message. ENOUGH!! We do not consent!

    Since 9/11 the people of the united states have been on a spending spree, we have been arming ourselves. 9/11 made things clear, the world is dangerous and our government cannot protect us all the time in every instance. We see what massive immigration has and is doing to Europe. We see governments either unable or inept to protect average citizens from the effects of allowing massive numbers of people to immigrate from third world nations. We have and are taking responsibility for our own security and arming ourselves. The result is that outside of our most violent inner cities with severe restrictions on gun ownership, violent crime in the USA has diminished. The truth be told we are finding that Heinlein was right and in actuality "An armed society is a polite society."

    The actions of our government have also made one other thing perfectly clear. Our government fears We the People, more than it does radical Muslim terrorists. For the very reasons our military chooses to use the AR platform, We the People have purchased AR's in prodigious volumes. Millions of private citizens own an AR type rifle for a huge number of reasons; the AR15 and its variants are today's Musket. Although so few have been used in any type of crime that they are statistically insignificant, this is the type of weapon the ruling elite want restricted. Why??? Look at the damage caused and resources it took government forces in California to stop one man armed with an AR who targeted the police. They had SWAT teams with military grade weapons and tactics, they had helicopters, and they had numbers. Still it took days and disproportionate casualties to stop one determined man. Consider how many people own AR's, if a small number of them, shall we say 3%, chose to take up arms against law enforcement; it could and would cripple the nations law enforcement agencies. The ruling elite want more restrictive gun control because they fear the people; as well they should and with good reason.

    Today on 9/11 we heard the news and so did the ruling elite. We the People will not be disarmed. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing. In Sen. Angela Giron's district, Pueblo Colorado, 43% of the registered voters are Democrats and only 23% Republicans, yet 57% voted to recall her. A massive amounts of money from outside Colorado was spent, the overwhelming majority of that money was spent to stop and fight the recall of Morse and Giron. The results of the recall scare the crap out of the Ruling Elite.

    The news on this 12 anniversary of 9/11 gives us hope that the ideas which formed this nation still exist and stand strong. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The news today is a clear message that the We the People will not tolerate tyranny.

    Tuesday, September 10, 2013

    Who Do You Trust

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/10/2013

    Do you trust Monsanto sponsored research that says GMO's are good?

    Do you trust Dow Chemical sponsored research that says Chemical XYZ is safe?

    Do you trust the video gaming industry research that says video games don't affect behavior?

    Then why do you trust Red Light Camera Research sponsored by the people who that collect red light ticket fees saying red light camera's and the tickets they issue make you safer?

    Regardless of the subject, any state sponsored "scientific" research should automatically be considered suspect if the results include:
  • the need for more tax money, to do more research
  • the need for more state power to control something,
  • limiting the choices individuals are allowed to make in favor of state control of those choices.

    Our government was created with severe restrictions because our forefathers didn't even trust themselves if given power. Before you trust the government with your well being, ask yourself how well that worked out for Native Americans.

    Global Warming is a hoax, you don't need to be a scientist to understand that. "Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf." ~ Voxday

  • Monday, September 9, 2013

    Press Ignores Brutal Hate Crime, Killer Yells “I Hate Black People”

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/9/13 11:00am

    In a clearly race based hate crime the national media has completely ignored. It seems at Union Square in NYC, a man allegedly went on a rampage in Union Square on Wednesday afternoon and left a complete stranger brain-dead in the process. Jeffrey Babbitt, 62, was minding his own business as he walked through the crowd near the chess boards in Union Square when a man made a hateful announcement and began his rampage, witnesses said.

    One woman claimed, “He said ‘the next black person who walks by I’m going to [expletive].” Babbit was the next person, and according to a witness “His fist went in and the man’s head bobbed and he hit the ground and you could hear his skull hitting the ground.”

    The National Media have completely ignored what could have been a great headline “NY Man Left Brain Dead By Attacker Shouting 'I Hate Black People'”. It’s bad enough that Martin’s killer got away with murder now another black is murdered by a white guy and the press ignores it.

    Why is the press so disinterested?



    Correction 8/9/2013 12:00pm: It was a black guy yelling “I Hate White People” so the entire story is irrelevant; violence crimes where white people are the victims of race based hate crimes committed by blacks are not news, it is politically incorrect to report hate crimes initiated by minorities, and doing so would violate the AP guidelines. CBS New York covers story here

    Sunday, September 8, 2013

    Why We Can’t All Just Get Along

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/8/2013

    The “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt is a book that explores the differences in morality between the left and the right. It explains the motivators that polarize our nation. His explanations on big issues like jobs and the economy are clear and worthy of both the left, right, statists, and libertarians reading. His book will be rejected by statists of both the right and the left, but mostly modern liberals. It explains why we can’t all just get along.

    Walter Williams explains the same topics equally as well in any of his articles about greed or social justice. Observationally looking at all of human history, the USA is a prime example, it is clear that more people prospered and were lifted out of poverty when the state was minimal and took the job of protecting individual rights (especially property rights) equally under the law as the rightful purpose of government. Since the “war on poverty” and massive increase in state redistribution of wealth and state control of almost everything, the quality of life and creation of wealth by the common man in the USA has greatly diminished. Statism in the USA is returning us to the historic norm for man, where the ruling elite live in luxury with privation for the masses.

    Liberals think emotional not rationally and harbor a few false beliefs that make dealing with them on a logical basis impossible. Liberals believe that if there is some good that the state does, if the state doesn’t do it nobody will. They believe most people are too stupid to make their own life choices. They also believe that others act like them, they generally don’t give substantively to charity thus assume others don’t either. Those false beliefs, coupled with thinking emotionally rather than rationally, they assume that those who don’t support state-paid-for-charity are evil and don’t “care” about the poor and needy.

    The reality is that most of my libertarian arguments fail to convince liberals of the error of their ways. The reason is that although objective truth may rationally destroy a position, logic and reason do not persuade most people. This is the same reason that the Libertarian Party is so small.

    Consider the Gun Debate. The facts are clear, assault weapons result in far fewer murders than hammers or clubs, and that the number of gun crimes committed with assault weapons is so miniscule as to be statistically irrelevant, yet the emotional impact of an insane criminal committing an extremely rare by heinous evil crime, like using an assault weapon to shoot children, is justification to restrict the rights of the millions of people who’ve committed no crime but own scary looking guns. The emotional impact of a lawful person using a gun when confronted with a criminal resulting in the criminal running away, just doesn’t compare; no shots fired, nobody hurt, no crime successful, not drama, no emotional impact. Regardless of the fact that the most recent Harvard study shows about 200,000 defensive gun uses every year compared to about 8,000 gun homicides, each homicide can be used to create an emotional ripping tale, while the vast majority of defensive gun uses are so anticlimactic that the press doesn’t bother to cover them. The press isn’t evil in not covering them, it the simple fact that self defense stories with no shots fired and nobody hurt, take up time and space and don’t sell ads. The gory shooting of innocent people sells ads.

    Because liberals overwhelmingly use emotion over logic, many of their positions contradict each other. Haidt points this out saying, “I find it ironic that liberals generally embrace Darwin and reject ‘intelligent design’ as the explanation for design and adaptation in the natural world, but they don’t embrace Adam Smith as the explanation for design and adaptation in the economic world. They sometimes prefer the ‘intelligent design’ of socialist economies, which often ends in disaster from a utilitarian point of view.”

    The current explosive costs of health care were easily predicted because market forces have been removed from health care. Haidt explains clearly what would happen if a product that is far more necessary than medical services were subjected to the same “intelligent design” that we have subjected healthcare:
    “Markets Are Miraculous … Now let’s do the devil’s work and spread chaos throughout the marketplace. Suppose that one day all prices are removed from all products in the supermarket. All labels too, beyond a simple description of the contents, so you can’t compare products from different companies. You just take whatever you want, as much as you want, and you bring it up to the register. The checkout clerk scans in your food insurance card and helps you fill out your itemized claim. You pay a flat fee of $10 and go home with your groceries. A month later you get a bill informing you that your food insurance company will pay the supermarket for most of the remaining cost, but you’ll have to send in a check for an additional $15. It might sound like a bargain to get a cartload of food for $25, but you’re really paying your grocery bill every month when you fork over $2,000 for your food insurance premium.

    Under such a system, there is little incentive for anyone to find innovative ways to reduce the cost of food or increase its quality. The supermarkets get paid by the insurers, and the insurers get their premiums from you. The cost of food insurance begins to rise as supermarkets stock only the foods that net them the highest insurance payments, not the foods that deliver value to you.

    As the cost of food insurance rises, many people can no longer afford it. Liberals (motivated by care) push for a new government program to buy food insurance for the poor and the elderly. But once the government becomes the major purchaser of food, then success in the supermarket and food insurance industries depends primarily on maximizing yield from government payouts. Before you know it, that can of peas costs the government $30, and all of us are paying 25 percent of our paychecks in taxes just to cover the cost of buying groceries for each other at hugely inflated costs.”

    Clearly Libertarians need argue more emotionally not rationally if we are to get both Democrats and Republicans to abandon ideas that have clearly failed but they find emotionally satisfying. Don’t look for that from me, I’m not going to be able to make effective emotional appeals as I’m overwhelmingly left brained. I truly don’t “get” how regardless of the facts people can “feel” something that is so factually incorrect is still right. I can't work on how things "should be" and must address how they "are." I’ve often said “How you feel about it doesn’t matter, what you can prove does.”

    Rodney King famously asked “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is easy: because too many people reject reason, logic, and objective truth for what feels right. No rational person can get along with people who rationalize that slavery is wrong, yet claim it’s righteous to use force to take the labor and/or property of some people and give it to others and call it justice.

    “What's just has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?” ~ Dr. Walter E. Williams

    Sunday, September 1, 2013

    Slate declares Obama’s are Bad People

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/1/2013

    Allison Benedikt of Slate published “a manifesto” decrying the Obama’s as bad people, titled: “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person”

    Read it for yourself, the premise is a simplistic revelation of liberal guilt. The idea being because good parents sacrifice and send their kids to good private schools instead of public schools they are depriving the public schools of good dedicated parents who will work to hold that school accountable. The reason public schools are failing is because good students with responsible parents abandon them. She claims that yes your kid will not get as good an education for a few generations as they could but so what, because you’re a good parent they will do fine. It’s unfair that the public school is deprived of good students with good parents. Benedikt says, “You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it.”

    Simple liberal logic, society’s needs for good parents and good student as models in public school outweighs a family’s needs and desires. Liberals simplistically believe that public education equals strong society and that all people have a duty to society greater than to themselves and their families. It’s simply unfair that your child has parents willing to sacrifice and make sure your child gets the best education they can and other children don’t, so to make things fair she is trying to guilt you into sending your child to public school.

    Of course this is sheeple speek, to guilt the middle class. In reality you know that this isn’t true and that liberal in power don’t believe it to be true either, just look at liberal leaders, specifically the President of the United States, Obama. His kids don’t go to the local public schools in DC. Imagine how much safer a public school in DC would be because of the necessary Secret Service that would be there to protect Obama’s kids. Imagine how much better the educational opportunities would be for all the students of the DC public school would be if Michelle Obama was a member of the PTA. The Obama’s deprived Washington DC public schools the benefits of having their children in public school.

    The Obama’s actions speak far louder than words. They know public education in DC sucks, and as such their children will not be exposed to the violence and culture that has resulted on one of the most expensive and poorest performing public school systems in the USA. It’s clear they don’t care about the community they live and as Allison Benedikt of Slate claims, they are Bad People.