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

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Civil War II has Begun

By Tom Rhodes, 12/21/2014

In NYC two police officers where assassinated, blame has been placed on retaliation for the prosecuted murder of a NYC citizen by the NYPD. This is what the start of Civil War II in the USA is going to look like. Civil War II won't involve troops and defined lines of engagement, it will be a 4th generation war. I suggest you read William S. Lind's book on the subject.

The police today no longer serve and protect, they exist to use force to instil the will of the ruling elite on the populace, they have an us vs. them mentality, and are clearly separate not part of their communities. As such war between the state and the people is inevitable. Vox Day notes that the police “are increasingly corrupt, increasingly frightened, increasingly gunned-up, increasingly feeling at war with the general population, and increasingly of a different ethnicity than the people with whom they are interacting on a regular basis.” Further stating that to avoid Civil War II, the police should “disarm completely, stop playing soldier, abandon the concept of 'law enforcement', and stop their confrontational tactics. This is highly unlikely, however, because most police officers recruited after the Drug War began are psychologically well-suited for confrontation and quasi-militarization. They're neither trained nor psychologically equipped to lower the temperature these days.”

I believe it's too late to prevent a new era of violence in the USA. The simple fact is that today's militarized police have lost their moral authority. In just a couple years, “Don't TAZE me Bro” has become “Don't Shoot me.” The press try to suppress and control the information, but the internet has destroyed the ability of the ruling elite to control what information the people get. We see the oppression of those who don't do as dictated by the police. Look at other news were 4 year old's are put in handcuffs, parents arrested for objecting at school board meetings, sleeping 7 yr old little girls shot by police and ruled justified, police justified throwing grenades into baby's cribs maiming them for life, or the people simply arrested for merely filming the police doing their job. When all legal recourse for true justice is taken away from the people, they have no choice but to seek to limit state power by whatever means they have.

As the government gets bigger and we get more and more laws trying to control every part of our lives, there will be more and more people seeking to terrorize the police into limiting their abuses, "just doing their job" is no excuse. We didn't accept that type of excuse at Nuremberg, and in the USA if the state won't willing limit itself and increases the use of force to make We the People capitulate to laws clearly beyond the authority We the People gave them, then it is not only the right but the Duty of We the People to resist.

The coming war against the state won't look like any traditional war. The people won't attack that military, rather it starts with the police, then moves to the bureaucrats and their families and then the business that supply the state. A direct confrontation against the government's military might would be fatal and stupid. Free people changed the rules of war and won against the mightiest force in the world, don't think that same spirit, determination, and resourcefulness doesn't still exist.

How is the state going to be able to hire people to enforce it's draconian laws, if those people who would take the job know they and their families are the targets. The only hope is for the police to demilitarize, quit using swat teams to make arrests for non-violent pot smokers, quit arresting people feeding the homeless, and return to a limited state with few powers. They forget that the people could eliminate every LEO in the country overnight. I'm not sure LEO's understand that very survival depends upon the good will of “We the People”. They should look up the Sicilian Vespers and sincerely think about their relations with common people.

Unless the majority of officers change their behavior and become willing to cross the thin blue line, and arrest and testify against other LEOs who routinely abuse their authority, no LEO should get any respect, they haven't earned it. Merely being a good cop who doesn't abuse their power isn't enough, they must protect the people from those cops who do abuse their power. LEOs have clearly demonstrated that protecting other cops is more important than protecting the people, thus don't deserve our support.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Republicans and Democrats Represent Parties of Violence

By Tom Rhodes, 12/12/2014

America is so Overcriminalized the government as controlled by the violent combination of Democrats and Republicans now routinely kills innocent citizens. Both parties lust for power, and are willing to use violence against the American people to keep and maintain that power. Neither party exists to complete the mission statement and purpose for which we the people instituted a government. George Will correctly characterized how the lust for using violence that both parties share has changed our government saying, “American government is increasingly characterized by an ugly and sometimes lethal irresponsibility.”

At one time our society was just, not perfect, but at least we ascribed to the goals of justice and the rule of law. Both ideas have been abandoned by both the Democrats and Republicans, ignoring the wise words of our forefathers and the principles this nation was founded. When we had a just society we had few laws, and those laws were easy to understand and they focused on protecting life, liberty, and property. Today it is impossible for any person to understand much less know all the laws that they are ruled by, much less abide by all of them. Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School explains the legal reality that now exists in America:

…federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes, fewer than half of which found in the Federal Criminal Code. The rest are scattered through other statutes. A citizen who wants to abide by the law has no quick and easy way to find out what the law actually is — a violation of the traditional principle that the state cannot punish without fair notice. In addition to these statutes, he writes, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations may be enforceable through criminal punishment in the discretion of an administrative agency. Nobody knows the number for sure. Husak cites estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. …making an offense criminal also means that the police will go armed to enforce it. Overcriminalization matters… Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. …Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.

One thing is clear and proven by the hundreds of people killed every year by the police, any law that comes with a fine or possibility of arrest, the government is saying do as we dictate or we will kill you. Laws and government are force, and the threat of violent force and death is what backs up the law. Ask Mr. Garner, who is now dead, because the Democrats and Republicans created laws that said selling cigarettes without collecting the appropriate tax is illegal, and failure to do so we will send armed men, with the authority to kill you, to force you to comply. Why does NY put such a huge tax on cigarettes that it is estimated that 70% of cigarettes in NY were obtained on the black market? Because they think smoking is bad for you and want to change your behavior and punish you if you don’t do what they think is best. They are willing to kill you, if you try to avoid paying their punishment for not behaving as they dictate is in your best interest.

The government wants to control you and your choices. To enforce punitive taxes on tobacco products, the government is willing to kill you. Oh they will say it’s not breaking the tobacco tax law that got Garner killed, it’s resisting arrest. That makes it worse, the fact that you won’t accept the government control, and would dare resist the government controlling your voluntary actions is grounds for you death. It was the cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest.

Do a quick Youtube search and you can find hundreds of videos of police beating up people who would dare question their authority. Mention your constitutional rights, like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to remain silent, freedom to travel, and you are likely to be detained and assaulted for “resisting arrest.”

You law and order Republicans, you’re violent statists who are willing to have kill people to enforce your ideas on how people ought to live. You think people who choose to take drugs for recreational purposes are so evil that the government should control their actions, and if they resist the government control of their voluntary actions the government should use force, up to and including killing such individual if they don’t submit to the government. The difference between a Republican and most libertarians is that although both generally dislike recreational drugs, and think that recreational drug use is not a wise idea, libertarians are not willing to let someone else get killed because they have a different perspective.

Uber liberal, socialist, and statist, Barney Frank in 2009 said, "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society." That of course was Democrat Hyperbole. He voted to make it illegal for you to use the light bulb of your choice, voted to limit free speech over the internet, voted for more government regulations on what you can and can’t eat, cosponsored laws giving the government more oversight in tobacco products, voted against retailers being allowed to set their own prices, and is famous for voting to control who banks must lend money. Obvioulsy he like most Democrats talks about people being allowed to make their own choices, so long as those are the choices he approves, otherwise he is quite willing to send armed government officials to force you to capitulate, and who have the authority to kill you if you refuse.

The actions of both the Democrats and Republicans clearly demonstrate they are OK with using the violent force to dictate that you live the way they think is best, and have opted for trying to control you through violence or the threat of violence. If you think that isn’t true, ask yourself why the BLM needs to be armed and have massive amounts of weapons and ammo? Why does the Dept. of Education, Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human Service, Department of Interior, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Railroad Retirement Board, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, need armed need armed law enforcement officers? The answer is clear, they are willing to use the threat of violence and even kill the people to enforce the rules and regulations of those departments.
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has armed officers.

Democrats and Republicans so want to rule over everybody, they’ve created and armed a zillion Departments of Whatever. Anybody’s failure to comply with the hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations can, and often does, result in violent force used to rule over everybody. Republicans and Democrats have proven the are willing to risk the lives of their fellow citizens to get their own way, they make all sorts of things illegal, and authorize the use of force up to and including killing citizens who fail to capitulate.

Are you willing to allow the government the right to kill other citizens who don’t share you’re belief that people shouldn’t do recreational drugs?

Are you willing to stand by and let another person die at the hands of the government, because they choose to bet playing cards?

Do you think someone should lose his life because he offered to pay for sex? Do you think a person who takes money in exchange for sex should die at the hands of government? I think prostitution is wrong, it’s bad for both the prostitute and the solicitor, but it’s a voluntary exchange and I don’t think I have a right controlling how others live. Because I think it’s wrong, I am personally boycotting prostitutes and urge others to do the same. What I don’t do is threaten others by saying I’ll send people authorized to use force and punish you if you choose purchase or sell sex. If you support laws that make prostitution illegal you are saying that you are willing to kill people who are willing to refuse to accept your control of their sex lives.

The ruling elite, be they Republicans and Democrats, want to control you and your life. They have proven willing to hire, train, and arm people and send them to force you to comply, they have authorized those people to kill you if you fail to comply. Sell loosies on the streets of NY, you could get dead. It’s a shame so many are willing to use violence to control how others live.

Ask yourself these question about any law: Does this law make a voluntary choice of an individual that has no direct effect on the rights of another a crime? If someone refuses to obey a law, should the government have the authority to use violent force to enforce it, even killing those who refuse to obey? If you can’t answer yes to both questions you should oppose the law, and demand it be repealed.

Monday, December 8, 2014

Reality Check - America Not Working

Reality Check - America Not Working
By Tom Rhodes, 12/8/2014

The news last week is about Black Friday sales dropping 11% since last year, and China surpassing the USA as the world’s Number 1 economy. The question to as is: Is China doing better or the USA doing worse? And Why? Employment records tell the story. The USA is doing worse. America isn’t working anymore. To be the Number 1 economy you have to be doing stuff. We aren’t.

About 100 million American who could be working aren’t. We’re not talking about kids and old folk, but 1 in 4 Americans between the age of 25 and 54 are not working. How is it possible that 1 in 4 working aged adults is idle? That idleness translates into a declining economy.

Here’s another interesting fact. 1 in 4 kids live below the poverty level. Now the description of poverty in the USA doesn’t match the description of poverty in other parts of the world. Does the fact that 1 in for adults in their prime working age are idle matches the 1 in 4 kids living in poverty sound coincidental?

Think about what it means when 1 in 3 adults between the age of 25 and 54 are working. Remember TANSTAAFL . To feed, and provide entertainment to the 100 million non-working adults even at what the USA classifies as poverty levels isn’t cheap. Not very many of those 100 million working age adults have a wealthy inheritance, nor are very many disabled. As of Novermber 2014 there are 119 Million full time workers. And of those 119 Million, around 30 Million work for the government. Full time government employees are paid out of tax dollars, hence other workers pay their salaries, they are by definition drain’s on non-government worker salaries. Ouch, That means that to support the 100 million non-working adults, plus 30 million government employees, and the 100 million or so kids, disabled, and old folks, there are only 90 Million people working.

That pretty much answers the question of why the USA is no longer the Number 1 economy in the world. We’re not working. That answers the question on why a middle class income can no longer afford to purchase a new car. We’re not working. That answers the question of why we spent $11 Billion less on Black Friday. We’re not working. That pretty much answers the question of why 1 in 4 kids live below the poverty level. We’re not working.

How is it possible that 100 Million working age adults don’t work? Are there that many stay at home moms? I don’t think so. Are there that many millionaires who are independently wealthy and don’t have to work? I don’t think so?

What makes that possible is a simple fact, in America today one doesn’t have to work in to eat. Not only don’t you have to work to eat, but the idle in the USA have cable TV, cell phones and free health care.

I would say soon you will see those working, quit working, why bother when you can get by without working, but I can't, soon is now. We’ve crossed the tipping point, and this is what it looks like when people go Galt. Why work if you don’t have to, especially when out of your pay check the government is going to take enough take care of somebody else. Why not be the somebody else? What does it look like when working age adults, go idle – China exceeds USA as Number 1 economy and Black Friday sales take a 11% drop.

Obama noticed and even said so, but just not clearly. Being a stay at home mom taking care of her kids is a choice "we don't want" women to make. He wants, nay needs, able bodied people working, but we're not, as a nation too many of us have gon Galt.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Questions raised by Ferguson

By Tom Rhodes, 12/2/2014

If the President and his Attorney General want to raise public awareness of the mistreatment of blacks in our judicial system, aren't they trivializing their own cause by using a case in which the facts don't support that objective?

There were lots of witnesses willing to testify about Brown’s death, why when there is black on black crime in black communities can’t lots of witnesses be found?

President Obama depicted Brown as a victim, by doing so isn't he attacking the grand jury and undermining the justice system, and attacking governmental credibility in general?

It appears as though the evidence in Ferguson indicates that Brown was killed as a result of his violent actions, yet there is ample evidence of the police getting away with violence against innocent blacks all across the country, from infants in play pens and sleeping little girls, to choking to death giant handcuffed men. Why isn’t Attorney General Holder, looking at the plethora of cases where police are exonerated for killing a black person under far more questionable circumstances? Why does the black community have to riot, to get the nation to examine the Thin Blue Line and the non-accountability of law enforcement?

Why were reporters eating lunch at McDonalds Arrested?

Why does the black community get all up in arms, riot, and loot their own communities, when a black criminal is shot by a white cop, they cry and demand “justice,” but they are silent and do nothing about the massive numbers of other killings and violent crime against blacks in their own communities that are known to be perpetrated by other blacks?

By depicting Brown as a victim, is Obama going against yet another promise, and rather than healing the racial tension in America exacerbating it?

How exactly is black on black looting caused by white on black racism?

In refusing to honor the grand jury's findings, is Attorney General Holder attacking the grand jury and undermining the justice system in general?

By depicting Brown as a victim, regardless of the actual physical evidence and grand jury finding, is Obama purposefully driving a wedge between the black community and law enforcement?

Were the riots in Ferguson orchestrated in advance, and the grand jury's decision as an excuse?

History has repeatedly shown that where blacks riot and loot, local businesses and the tax paying portion of the population flee that city resulting in collapse of the local economy. Will Ferguson and possibly St. Louis become the next Detroit?

The general acceptance of law enforcement failure to protect constitutional rights of blacks, and bypass constitutional protection against search, seizure, and due process against blacks has been tolerated by the government and the people. This has obviously lead the police to act as though they cannot or will not be held accountable for violating the people’s constitutional rights regardless of race. Youtube is full of video of government agents violating individual rights. Because even proving that an officer violated an individual’s rights rarely if ever results in the officer suffering more than a slap on the wrist, as the people realize that in reality they have no legal means of justice when their rights are violated by the government, will we soon see general uprising against police by more than just minorities? Will the Bundy Ranch and Ferguson become the only means of the people seeking justice before an increasingly tyrannical government that is militarizing the police to control rather than serve the people?

Jimmy Carter Ended at Least One Monarchy

By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2014

At Least one of the action of Jimmy Carter can be attributed to ending an monarchy. It was Jimmy Carter’s administration ending the prohibition of home brewed beer, that eventually lead to the rebirth of brewing in the USA. Prior to prohibition there were around 2000 breweries in the USA. In the roaring 20’s that number became zero. Today the number is now over 3000.

The monarchy that has been taken down is none other than the King of Beers, Budweiser. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the craft beer craze, (AKA free and open markets), crowded Budweiser out of the top spot and is now down to 7.6% of the beer market, half its market share from a year ago. “Young drinkers aren’t the reason Budweiser volumes have declined in the U.S. for 25 years, from its nearly 50-million-barrel peak in 1988 to 16 million barrels last year. . . . Some 44% of 21- to 27-year-old drinkers today have never tried Budweiser”

OK, once we realized prohibition was a bad idea, we still had an overzealous government. The post-prohibition restrictions made it all but impossible for small breweries to operate. By the late 70’s there were fewer than 100 breweries.

Starting with Carter ending prohibition of home brew, there were a series of Regan initiatives that swept away ridiculous government regulatory burdens that benefitted no one except Big Beer and their taste killing, lowest-common-denominator approach.

The fact is without draconian government regulation that supported big beer, the market has exploded. Free markets always result in the consumer having more choice over a wide range of offerings. When it comes to beer, we now have a vast panoply of beers from which to choose. We now have porters, stouts, porters, lagers, porters, ales, pilsners, porters, bocks, and other variations. Did I mention we can now by a variety of good porters (I may have a preference that bias my reporting). The past decade or so has seen an explosion of craft brew that offers wonderful taste and options that the pale King of Beers, and the taste alike pilsners of the few competitors we had. We now live in the golden age of beer; Thank you Jimmy Carter.

The LPF candidate for Florida Govenor, Adrian Wyllie, did what will probably become a staple in politics. He campaigned from microbreweries all across the state. He didn’t hit them all. Even little villages like Crystal River has its own Winery and Brewery, in fact it’s the first winery and brewery in the same location ever in Florida, Cop Winery. It was a good location for the LPF candidate to visit. That visit and the work of only a few people resulted in little Citrus County returning a large percentage of LPF voting. There are more absurd regulations regarding how beer is made and sold to be removed. But it is self-evident and a historical fact that removing government regulation, revitalized a stagnant market with limited choices for the consumer.

Nothing against Budweiser, it’s a nice traditional pilsner, but when I have a choice of flavorful milk stouts, chocolate porters, and more varieties of American red ale, than I can name, why would a very light pale pilsner, that lacks depth, body, and flavor. America is buying less barrels of beer. The reason is clear, America like me, would rather have one $5 craft porter, than a 6 pack of Bud.

If you’re in Crystal River Florida, check out Cop Brewerey and order a G’Morning coffee stout, and drink a toast to Jimmy Carter, the liberal who opened up the beer market. If you in Ashville NC hoist a Greenman Porter in Carter’s honor. Spend a weekend looking for a CoCo Mole’ a spicy chocolate stout that is worth the search.

Like other monarchies, when the people are free from the “king,” they shed the crony protection and overbearing regulations of the “king,” liberty and freedom brings about a huge benefit to the people. As for me I won’t be helping much with American beer sales, I just bottled 2 cases of my very own porter thanks to the good people at ebrew.com. Free markets and competition, even from making it yourself, might be hard on big corporations, but they are good for We The People.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Income Inequality – a Moral Imperative

By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2014

Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.

A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.

Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.

One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.

Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.

The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).

Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.

Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.

Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.

The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.

The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.

Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.

In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.

Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Thanksgiving - Celebrating Private Property's Triumph Over Collectivism

By Tom Rhodes, 11/26/2014
I doubt anybody will notice but this as a repeat of my 2010 Thanksgiving article

As you know the original colony to Plymouth celebrated thanksgiving with the Indians in November of 1623. The Pilgrims arrived in December of 1621, and began their colony as a commune, and organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally. This experiment again proved what the ancient Greeks observed eons before. As Aristotle wrote, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

The Pilgrims faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. The result was as winter of 1622 set in, they did not have enough food and provisions set for the winter and famine and privation ran rampant by the spring of 1623 only 5 women had survived. Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary, "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented.

The problem is that when people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. This was an early harsh and historically repeated lesson that socialism and communism result in less production even to the point of starvation. Thus again proving that the rules set to us by God are best to live by. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

Later of the colonists, Bradford said, they "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (I with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land. . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623. Because of the abundance the Pilgrims not only were able to feed themselves, but to take care of those among them who try as they might failed to do so. It was private charity that took care of those less fortunate.

Thanksgiving is clear proof and evidence of the triumph of private property, connecting effort to reward, demonstrating that when everything is “shared equally” it incentivizes each person to contribute as little as possible to get their “equal” share. Whereas with every pilgrim given private property produced abundance which they could then trade with others for things they lacked. The free mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the entire community richer.

We should all be thankful that we do not have to learn the lessons of protecting private property in the same deadly way that the pilgrims. Thanksgiving is the quintessential American holiday, copied by many other countries; it is a polar opposite of May Day. On Thanksgiving, we celebrate the fall of communism and are thankful for the abundance God provides through the free market.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Are the Ferguson Riots the Early Signs of Revolution

By Tom Rhodes, 11/25/2014

Remember Rodney King? It was the first use of a home video camera to capture police abuse that made national news. Form knocking suspects out of wheel chairs, to kicking handcuffed girls, to lobbing stun grenades at toddlers, the list of abuses by the police that go unpunished, or just result in a slap on the wrist is huge. Youtube has thousands of hours of video showing the not just police’s contempt for the people, but downright violent abuse. Just Googling “cops assault wheelchair” and the number of instances on video of cops beating up wheel chair bound people is astounding. The problem is that cops are only rarely even charged much less convicted of their crimes. The Rule of Law is dead.

No Knock raid on the wrong house resulting in death of black children are not uncommon in the USA. Nor is injury to innocent children uncommon. The fact is the police botch paramilitary no-knock raids so regularly they are now not news worthy. That and many in the press would rather not cover police abuse than become a victim of it.

The fact that the evidence clearly suggest Brown was justly shot as being a violent criminal attacking a cop is irrelevant. The Ferguson Riots now happening are not because in this instance a cop justly shot a criminal who happened to be black, the Ferguson Riots were triggered by a white cop shooting a black youth and not being charged with murder. With such a plethora of examples of the police getting away with assault and murder without being charged, and more so in the black community, it was bound to happen. Because the police have in general, and for good reason, lost all credibility, they are in a lose lose situation. A condition that they created for themselves.

Not all police are evil and abusive. But the Thin Blue Line, that exists that allows the minority of bad cops to literally get away with murder. Means every good cop that doesn’t arrest his fellow bad cop is a coconspirator and just as guilty. The reality is that black people commit a disproportionate amount of murder and assault, and usually against other black people. That means they will have a disproportionate amount of interaction with the police, and will disproportionately be abused by the police. Two decades of video showing disproportionate police abuse against blacks has had its toll.

The truth of the individual event is not relevant. The accumulation of police abuse and increased paramilitary tactics and more violent reaction of the police has systematically transformed the trust in the police and it will take decades to ever regain that trust. It’s not just the black community. All of America now generally distrusts the police. When you can’t drive without being stopped by homeland security and being asked about your citizenship. Watching grandma routinely getting felt up at the airport by the government “for our safety.” The fact is that killings by police outpace gang, drug, child-abuse homicides. BusinessWeek today headlines “NYC Incurs Record $732 Million Cost as Abuse Settlements Rise.” The reason abuse settlements are on the rise is that despite the well documented fact that crime in the USA is dramatically less, abuse by the police is up.

Our government, through our various law enforcement agencies, has clearly decided that they rule the people instead of serve the people. And as the sheer volume of laws increase, the amount of force to make a people who generally believe in freedom and liberty, bow to that ever increasing government is increasing proportionately. Obama announced over 3000 new regulations, without law being passed this week; that over 3000 more instances to use force against the people of the United States. This country was not founded by people, nor is it populated by people, who quietly bow down to government. The character of the USA is such that violence against an oppressive government is not considered immoral. One of the bloodiest wars in history was our Civil War.

The militarization of our police, coupled with Obama’s clear disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution is changing the game. Law enforcement officers routinely get away with disregarding the law. The idea that the law exists to control the people, not limit the ruling elite is pervasive in all levels of our government from the lowest deputy to the Commander and Chief of all the armed forces. That means the laws and duty to obey the state are no longer valid. It is the early signs of the destruction of our republic.

I suspect soon you will see direct threats against law enforcement personnel and their families. Soon after you will see them and their families killed for their abuse as a message to others that the people will not stand for their tyranny anymore. That will be followed by police quitting their jobs and the state finding it difficult to hire people to become LEOs. Small businesses will simply refuse to service or sell to LEOs and other government agents. This is already happening in some parts of the west.

I’m very conflicted about the Ferguson Riots. Rioting over a criminal being shot and the cop not being charged when the evidence is clear it was a just shooting is simply wrong, as is the looting; but the buildup and militarization of the police and clearly observable increase in police abuse with little or no legal means of ameliorating the problem cannot stand. The government has been exposed: exposed as thinking the people are stupid; exposed as not charging and trying big bankers who they know broke the law and destroyed hundreds of thousands of peoples fortunes and futures; exposed as having contempt for the average man; exposed as believing the law is meant to control the masses and not limit the ruling elite. The Ferguson Riots are just a symptom, a symptom of our government becoming tyrannical and the people refusing to acquiesce. Ferguson is just the urban version of the rural Bundy Ranch. The people are rebelling against tyranny.

We can’t escape and live free by moving to the frontier anymore. There is no more frontier. The state wants, nay demands, control of the people cradle to grave. The state is proving it willingness to use force to terrorize the people into capitulation. 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 United States, it may now be a necessity to alter our former system of government.

From Today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch were some interesting quotes that confirm the above.

Steven Rodriguez, 22, of Ferguson, said, “This violence wasn't planned. This happened because people are sick and tired of being shot and bullied by the police.”

With him was Kenneth Covington, 24, of north St. Louis, who added, “There have been so many black men killed by police but police are never held accountable for it.”

Briana Bobo, 25, Ballwin, stood outside the police station with tears in her eyes. “It seems that nothing that we do matters,” she said. “We can't win for losing.”

Monday, November 24, 2014

Net Neutrality is Simply the Liberal Response to Gruber

By Tom Rhodes, 11/24/2014

Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.

Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”

Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.

While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”

Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.

President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.

The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.

So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.

It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.

The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.

Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.

Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Pumpkins and Politicians

By Tom Rhodes, 11/6/2015

Boo! as in Boo Hoo, go cry someplace else. Leftists want to “get the money out of politics.” The fact is we don’t spend shit on politics, and the other fact is the media doesn’t care about it. What they media cares about is making money. Consider the facts. ABC's "World News Tonight" didn't air a single story on the midterm elections from June 11 to October 27, 2014. They did do lot’s of human interest stories. In fact Americans care more about Halloween parties than they do politics.

This year we spent $7,400,000,000 on Halloween, That’s over 7 Billion dollars, as in “B” Billions spent on candy, costumes, and pumpkins. That’s also more than was spent on the midterm elections including the PAC’s and evil corporations spending.

What does this mean. Simple, remember the old adage “Follow the Money.” There isn’t too much money in politics, people simply have different priorities. Corporations, Special Interests, Unions, and those who form PAC’s are interested in politics, the American People are interested in Vampires, Werewolves, Ghosts, Pumpkins, Candy, Parties, and what Taylor Swift is doing. The news covers reflects what people want and where they are willing to spend their money.

More money in history was spent on the midterm elections, but when more money is spent on Halloween than those elections we clearly see where the American People have put their priorities. It’s not in selecting leaders for our country, or having their voice heard. It’s in partying and escapism.

On average as a nation we spent $72 each on Halloween. I challenge ever Libertarian in Florida to forgo Haloween spending next year and send $72 to the LPF. The LPF put’s it’s money where its mouth is, and practices what it preaches. All politics is local, so half your donation will go to your local LP county affiliate. There were over 200 thousand people who voted for the LPF Tuesday, if they spent the same amount on the LPF as they did on Halloween every year, the LPF would have a 1.4 Million dollar annual budget, with that amount of money the LPF could and would win elections and make a difference. That much money would have made a huge difference.

If you are a libertarian and you spent more on Halloween or New Years Eve of St. Patrick’s Day to party and didn’t give to the LPF, you are a hypocrite, you don’t care about Liberty in our Lifetime. Put your money where your mouth is, CLICK HERE give up one night of partying, Halloween or New Years Eve or St. Patrick’s Day and send at least $72 to the LPF. If not You, Who? If not now, When?

You may choose to ignore politics and politicians, but they don’t ignore you. On average you’re spending $3000 per year more on healthcare because you ignored politics and politicians who passed Obamacare and are forcing you to spend more on health care. Not just this year, but every year, skip one of the many days we celebrate and spend that money on helping choose who represents and leads you in government. Or ignore politics and politicians, and party while your freedoms are slowly and methodically devoured by those who do pay attention to politics, and do put their money where their mouth is.

Follow the Money, your money, if you don’t voluntarily spend your money on politics, it’s your choice, what you are saying is that since you would rather buy pumpkins than politicians. OK that’s your choice, but because you would rather voluntarily spend your money that way it doesn’t take away the right of others like, unions, special interests, PAC’s, corporations put their money where their hearts are. You can’t bitch that there is too much money in politics when you spent more on pumpkins.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Prohibition - excues for big government and taking away our liberties.

By Tom Rhodes, repeat of 4/23/2009 post because it's relevant

Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Dion O'Banion, "Bugs" Moran (AKA Jack "Legs" Diamond), and "Dutch" Schultz, "Pretty Boy" Floyd, "Babyface" Nelson, Elliot Ness, Speakeasy, revenuers, G-men, The Coton Club, The Godfather, Flappers, all everyday names, places, styles. and ideas from some of our most popular action movies - Gangster movies.

Chicago - when you hear the name of that city do you think of honesty, integrity, liberty, or do you think of gangsters, crooked politics, graft and greed?

The roaring 20's where alcohol consumption was illegal, this had the following results: alcohol related deaths rose dramatically; arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent; arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent; organized crime grew into an empire; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance (alcohol) increased dramatically.

People flagrantly violated the law, drinking more of the substance that was originally prohibited. The problems prohibition intended to solve, such as crime, grew worse and they never returned to their pre-prohibition levels. Not only was prohibition ineffective, it was also damaging to the people and society it was meant to help. Prohibition should not have gone on for the thirteen years it was allowed to damage society.

You would think that prohibition would enhance the difficulty of obtaining alcohol. The opposite was true, liquor was actually very easy to acquire. The bootlegging business was so immense that customers could easily obtain alcohol by simply walking down almost any street. Today it's easier for a teen to get a joint than a beer. Pot's available at high school, and the local dealer doesn't card you.

FBI statistics show that in 2007 Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations, more than ever recorded in the USA. That's only the ones the police caught, many more never get caught. Even our last 3 presidents have admitted to doing pot. Well Clinton didn't inhale, so he might not count.

My grandfather born in Italy, living in Detroit, never paid any taxes from 1922 'til 1931 when for health reasons he moved to St. Louis and got a different job. (He was told to get out of town, as an independent Winsor to Detroit boatman, some people from the Purple Gang advised him that his health was in danger if he remained in Detroit.) This means that although he earned enough money to fully pay for a house, and was never without a new Oldsmobile every two years since leaving his independent delivery business, he also never paid a dime in income taxes over that same period of time. The government lost significant revenue for the 13 years of Prohibition because of the number of people earning a living "off the books".

How many of our inner city entrepreneurs currently earning a living selling a product their neighbors and friends obviously want, but happens to be illegal, are paying income taxes on their income?

Pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs. This is the argument for keeping it illegal. Beer prior to prohibition was the drink of choice for most, but because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. This sounds exactly like what's happened to the drug business, coke, crack, designer synthetic drugs, etc. all now available because there is more punch in smaller volume. In fact it can be argued that because of prohibition pot, and cocaine became more popular (they were still legal). Hence our war on drugs can be attributed to our failed war on demon alcohol.

Two good things did come from prohibition. Sweet mixed drinks, to cover the bad taste of bootleg liquer, it was mixed with sweet fruit juices to make it more palatable. Now we have fuzzy navels, bloody marys, Harvey Wallbangers, in fact an entire industry based on making hard to pallet strong liquors taste better. We also have the most popular and most watched sport in the nation due to prohibition. Nascar, started out with fast cars that were made from everyday transportation to out run government agents, and now it's watched by millions every weekend. And the drink most associated with Nascar... Beer, gotta love the irony.

Violence of the "Roaring 20's" was legendary. The violence of today’s drug gangs is just as legendary. There are as many modern gangster movies as those set in the 20's. When was the last time you heard a shooting over a "beer deal gone bad"? When was the last time you saw the door of a winery busted down on Cops? Doesn't happen, want to end violence related to gangs and drugs, then end drug prohibition. Because it's forced into the black market, the profits from drugs are extraordinarily large. A risk/profit analysis results in many people participating in illegal businesses. If there were not extraordinary risks, then there wouldn't be huge profits. The risks are there because drug suppliers, dealers, and purchasers can't avail themselves to the court system to settle disputes, they have to settle disputes themselves. This makes people who are willing to use violence and have violent skills employable, as these skills are necessary in the absence of being able to use a judiciary. End prohibition and the need for violence will disappear, just as it did in the alcohol business.

This is all common knowledge, in fact I've been collecting data like this forever from the net, for references just use Google on prohibition, gangsters, roaring 20's etc. all this and more is out there. We know that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and was a total disaster. We know this yet we cling to our war on drugs. Why?

Short answer is money. $19 billion federal dollars spend on the war on drugs in 2007. People running law enforcement, prisons, courts, selling law enforcement equipment, etc. all depend on the money from the war on drugs for their livelihood. Most of these are government workers or contractors. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If we ended the war on drugs we would only need a fraction of our prisons, law enforcement officers, and government employees. The government is protecting it job and power, not its citizens.

The stupidity of the failed war on drugs has got to stop. More illegal drugs are used in the US than anywhere in the world, the violence associated with drugs being illegal in the world has created international cartels, unstable governments, and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people. We know that prohibition leads to gangs, violence, crime, stronger chemicals, more addiction, and more use. Please work at ending prohibition, it doesn't work; all it does is give the government an excuse to further erode our liberty and freedom.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The CDC and Walter Tell

by Tom Rhodes, 10/14/2014

The Feds are rethinking Ebola strategy. This is a truly egregious WTF moment. The Hill reports: .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday said it is starting to “rethink” its Ebola strategy after the first-ever US transmission of the virus put a "relatively large" number of healthcare workers at risk.

"We’re concerned, and unfortunately would not be surprised if we did see additional [Ebola] cases in healthcare workers who also provided care to the index patient," CDC Director Tom Frieden said.

A nurse at Texas Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas was diagnosed with Ebola over the weekend, raising questions about the procedures that were followed when treating Thomas Eric Duncan. The nurse’s infection “doesn’t change the fact that it's possible to take care of Ebola safely, but it does change, substantially, how we approach it,” Frieden said.

Consider that according to medical records his family provided to The Associated Press there were about 70 staff members at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital were involved in the care of Thomas Eric Duncan after he was hospitalized, including the now infected nurse, being treated for the same Ebola virus that killed the Liberian man who was visiting Dallas. Obvious the size of the medical team alone, shows the intensity of the efforts hospital put into trying to save Duncan's life. Where are we going to get enough health professionals to treat 10, or 100, or 10000 Duncan’s. And how are we going to treat the health care professionals once they get the disease.

Sharon Ekambaram the head of Doctors Without Borders in South Africa, noted at a press conference in Johannesburg Tuesday, that medical workers have received inadequate assistance from the international community. Doctors Without Borders reported that 9 of the 16 staff members infected with Ebola have died.

As a Libertarian I firmly stand on the belief that you have the right to travel where you wish. I also firmly believe that your right ends when it infringes upon the right of others. Your right to travel, can and should be curtailed if you are traveling from a known source of Ebola, your right to travel ended when it infringes upon my right to life. Your right to travel stops when you exercise that right in a manner that transmits deadly disease.

When the CDC says, "it's possible to take care of Ebola safely" what do they mean? Obviously the odds are currently very poor to actually do so. The CDC is playing the part of Hermann Gessler, demanding that US healthcare workers play the part of Walter Tell. Ever hear of Hermann Gessler, or Walter Tell? Reread the old Swiss legend of William Tell. Walter is William Tell’s son, and as the Swiss legend tells it had the apple shot off his head by dear old dad. Yes it is possible to shoot an apple off somebody’s head with a crossbow, but that doesn’t make it any less risky. Now imagine instead of William Tell, you have the same people who run the post office and the license bureau shooting the cross bow. Feel safer standing there with an apple on your head?

WTF are we doing letting anybody into the country who might have this deadly disease. The CDC is betting the life of every healthcare worker in the country and chancing an epidemic in the USA hoping that they might be able to treat Ebola safely. Their record indicates that they are not as good as William Tell. People are going to die, not in far off Africa, but right here in the USA. Because our government is too worried about being politically correct instead of protecting the life of the American People.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

The Effect of Cell Phones on Sig vs Coach and Dessert

The Effect of Cell Phones on Sig vs Coach and Dessert
By Tom Rhodes, 9/9/2014

Ever watch a commercial for Outback, or TGI Friday’s, Chili’s, Applebee’s etc. The common theme is people socializing, laughter, and enjoying each other’s company. Nothing brings people together and nurtures community, friendship and family like breaking bread. My wife and I often dine out with friends. Like all dinner conversations the topics are eclectic varied and the topics change over the span of a couple words. We are all active in lots of endeavors from church, work, social groups, and the various activities we share and activities we don’t share. As such it used to be easy to fill an evening with engaging conversation. Technology has changed that.

Rather, it is the self-centered abuse of technology that has changed that. We are discussing the permutations of fall foliage and its effect on fermentation and relative benefits to not only the production of hard cider but the social benefits of sharing such during a cool evening around a fire, and out of the blue, “Oh My God, did you read about So-&-So’s daughter, she just posted that she’s having a problem with her boyfriend’s neighbor’s dog?” Seems one of us was engaged with her cell phone and not the conversation. But it’s dinner with friends, so we go that way, difficult for my wife and I as we have no Idea who So and So is, and also a bit difficult for her significant other and me because talking about So-&-So’s daughter’s problem’s with her boyfriend’s neighbor’s dog is just gossip and neither of us have interest or desire to engage in third hand gossip.

The conversation drifts and gently changes several times. Dinner table conversation typically moves in odd directions. Consider the conversation had migrated to debate about Coach and Vera Bradly vs knockoffs, which morphed to an apt description by my wife on why guys just don’t understand why we (women) need a variety of purses and wallets, explaining in terms we mere men could understand she noted that we didn’t have just one gun, and soon the conversation has morphed into relative cost benefits of various calibers for women to carry in their purse vs size, weight, and kick, when we hear, “Oh My God, did you see the story about the bodies they found at the volcano in Japan.” Again a completely unengaged interjection of irrelevant and non-participatory dialog. Although an interesting current event, the topic was hardly germane to the conversation on the functionality of a Sig 238 fitting into the cell phone pocket of a Madison Satchel vs just leaving a Lady Smith in the bottom of Triple Zip Hipster.

Obviously not wanting to miss out on what happening with friends, family, and the world are a good thing. When it causes you to be disengaged with what’s going on with you, your friends and family, right where you’re at, you need to disengage from your smart phone it makes you look like an idiot.

Oh, if you’re wondering the general consensus was that the although a Sig 238 fits nicely in the cell pocket of the Madison and is well organized and orderly, it’s too hard to get out in a panic situation, so unless it’s a formal occasion, you’re better off with the Lady Smith in the bottom of a Triple Zip Hipster; and no even Moon Blooms won’t make a Triple Zip Hipster formal. Unplug and put the cell phone away until after dessert, it’s amazing what you can learn breaking bread with friends and family.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Gay Marriage – Greatest Tax Dodge Ever Invented

By Tom Rhodes, 10/8/2014

Forget the religious, moral, and cultural arguments for/against gay marriage. It has got to be the best thing to ever happen to cheating the government out of taxes ever conceived. Once the leftists amoral progressives get their way and polygamy is once again legal, the rich will be able to sell off assets at great profit and not pay any taxes.

Think about it. Say a modestly well off guy buys some land and builds a house that cost him $100K 20 years ago, today he can sell that house for $500K, but if he does he has to pay taxes on the $400K profit of the sale. At 15% that’s a $60,000 loss. Make a deal with the buyer, we’ll call that deal a prenup, so instead of a “buyer” we have a “spouse.” They get married, create a joint savings account, and put the spouse on the deed. Then divorce. As part of the of the divorce agreement, in accordance with the prenup, the guy “loses” his house to the spouse, but gets the $400K from their “joint” savings account. Presto change property sold money exchanged and the government gets zero tax dollars. Marriage license and divorce filing fees under $1K so for doing paperwork, the seller realized $59K more in the bank and the government didn’t get $60K in taxes.

Now expand that to a business owner, with a $500Million dollar sports franchise he bought for $800K 10 years ago, and you can see how hundreds of millions of dollars in profits and capital gains can be transferred with zero tax liability. Guy marries another guy, and now they are joint owners of the Charlotte Hornets, new spouse catches him in bed with of all things a “woman” messy public divorce, and the Hornets have a new owner, but because of prenup, half a Billion dollars in their “joint” account goes to the former owner. Imagine an employee given “shares” in the company, no taxes get paid until they are sold and gains are realized. Now that employee gets married, the marriage “fails” and they get a divorce, the employee has a “bad lawyer” and gets taken, and all the shares go to the spouse. The spouse, now ex, has not realized payment from the corporation and can sell the shares tax free as the spouse realized zero capital gains. You get the picture.

The unintended consequence to gay marriage is the rich get another tax dodge, this one bigger than ever. Once the logical extension of gay marriage is realized, legalized polygamy, it’s going to get real interesting. The possibilities for avoiding taxes and moving money will be endless. Unless of course you want to create laws that force a divorced woman to pay taxes on the assets she is already the rightful owner.

Through the use of legally enforceable prenuptial agreements and divorces massive amounts of profits will legally be transferred and generated without any tax liability. Some might say that using marriage to avoid taxes is immoral, but then whose definition of moral are you using, it’s not like gay marriage by thousands of years of tradition and the standard of virtually every religion is moral.

Marriage, has always been used as a political and monetary tool, arranged marriages have brought nations together. Liberal divorce laws along with gay marriage is going to bring a slew of political and monetary schemes never intended. Unlike traditional marriage which always, even in arranged marriages, had a strong moral component; the unintended consequence of legalizing gay marriage with already liberal divorce laws are going to be manifestly greater than anybody has considered. You think inversion is a bad of US tax laws, wait until you see what unintended consequences manifest with gay marriage.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

US Government Silences Political Speech

US Government Silences Political Speech
By Tom Rhodes, 9/23/2014

A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that political speech is not protected. If those who don't approve of your speech threaten violence, the government has a right to silence you. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals now says preventing possible violence against you outweighs your right to free speech.

What the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was that the government, in this case school officials of Live Oak High School, can prohibit students from wearing to school clothing featuring the American flag, because of threats made against those students, not because of any threats those students made.

Peacefully wearing a shirt with an American Flag to school because it might piss off criminal alien students can be punished by the government. That is sick. What the Court ruled is that the hecklers veto is legal, and not submitting to the threat of violence is illegal.

During the 2009 Cinco de Mayo celebration at Live Oak, school officials ordered the students to turn their shirts inside out or go home, apparently because Latino students at the school couldn't be blamed if they became incensed at the flag shirts and resorted to violence to express their outrage. A year later, during the 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, Mexican students confronted three American students wearing American flag shirts again. "Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans?" one asked. The Mexican students threatened violence. Rather than go after the criminal bullies threatening violence, the government officials took the easy and cowardly path of punishing the peaceful patriots? Instead of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers, they persecuted those who exercised free speech.

What this does is rewarded their thuggish behavior and incentivized further acts of violence. The court, by approving this horrendous decision, has now set a precedent. If you want to shut down people's speech, the best way to do it is to threaten or commit violent acts against the speaker. As Libertarians we are screwed. The NAP dooms us to lose.

That's right the Non-Aggression Principle, dooms us. The court has ruled that all any group needs to do to silence libertarian speech is to threaten to do us violence. To protect us and stop violence the Court has ruled that we can be silenced.

Nobody could argue that the students wearing American Flag clothing isn't political speech, especially on Cinco de Mayo, in a place with a large Latino population. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect politically popular and generally accepted speech, that speech needs no protection. The strongest protections of the First Amendment supposedly apply to political speech. Obviously the First Amendment is dead. If liberals were intellectually honest, they would join us in voicing disgust at this court ruling and petition the SCOTUS to overturn this horrible decision.

Next thing you know, the US will be like Canada and tell Christians they cannot share scripture if those passages might offend others to the point of provoking them to violence. Imagine in the USA the government making reading or preaching on Leviticus 18:22 illegal, because it may cause others to become violent. Substantively that situation only differs in content from what telling students they can’t where American Flag themed clothing.

We do have a choice, it’s a sick choice, but now a legal choice, we can credibly threaten statists promoting statism with violence, then use this court case as a precedent to silence leftist ideas. All we have to do is abandon the NAP.

Not going to Happen!!! As the Party of Principle, the Libertarian Party cannot and will not abandon the one thing we expect of Libertarians - acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle. So soon expect the government to silence libertarian ideas using the excuse that such ideas publically expressed may upset a statist to the point they do violence, and preventing possible violence outweighs the right to free speech. It’s a sick end to the First Amendment and Liberty.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Our Culture Hides Rape

By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2014

The latest finding from the CDC indicate that women rape men as often as men rape women. The so called “rape culture” is not a one way street. Feminism has dramatically skewed the rhetoric and is trivializing the heinous crime of rape.

I would never have thought this reasonable and rational article would have come from Time Magazine but it did. In an article titled CDC Rape Numbers are Misleading, Time notes the following:
For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist "rape denial." However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, "rape culture" is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person - usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "other sexual violence."

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication - at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in

, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape - and why shouldn't it be? - then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

Today’s feminist culture is trying to tell us that a girl getting drunk clubbing and regretting waking up, with a hangover, at a strange guy’s place, tired, naked and sore from a wild drunken tryst is just as much a rape as being drug off the street into a van, held down and forcibly penetrated and abused. The idea is that women are not responsible if they do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. Rather taking responsibility for their sobriety and actions, feminism dictates that the mere fact that a woman regrets the outcome of her actions is a valid reason for labeling the idiocy men and women do when drunk or high as some criminal crime against women. The female imperative of our feminized culture, concludes that that men being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication, is not the same thing. If women want equality, they why do they not note and condemn the fact that women are just as guilty of raping men instead of trying to claim our society is misogynistic? Or note that when it comes to rape, by the definition they impose, society is equal?

The Libertarian Party of Florida’s Platform simple states: We support Equality Under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Clearly feminism today is not compatible with the being a Libertarian. Why do Feminists have a problem with Equality Under the Law? Their influence has pushed our government to abandon equality under the law. Why do they, and our government want laws to apply differently to men than women? Why do they and our government count crimes differently if committed by a woman than a man? Why do they and our government want the burden of proof to be different based on the sex of the accuser and/or victim?

The Time article ends in a refreshing use of rational logic and reason, rightly concluding “studies of sexual violence should use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men - and women - behaving badly.”

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Why Not Pay Them A Lot More?

By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/12

Thomas Sowell proposes an interesting idea. Most if not all the problems we see with elected officials is them using their power to acquire a high paying job later, or inside info to make money in the market, etc. Lobbyists find it relatively easy and cheap to purchase what they want out of government.

The Libertarian Position is to make government officials so powerless it won’t matter if they are bought off. Great idea in theory, but isn’t going to happen in reality. Dr Sowell proposes that we make it harder to buy off a government official, and make the job more attractive to people with real expertise who would never consider an office because of the pay cut.

Sowell notes, “We could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year -- for a whole century -- for less than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.

The least we can do is make it harder to bribe them. Trying to bribe a millionaire would at least be harder than bribing some government official with a modest salary and a couple of kids going to expensive colleges.”

At less than $600 Million, compared to the current waste in government, it might be a wise investment.

Like he says the current crop doesn’t deserve the money, but we won’t get better people at the current pay. Paying the people who control TRILLIONS of dollars a million a year is not outlandish. Look at CEO pay vs the gross revenue of companies they head. Maybe paying every member of the house $1 Million a year, the Senate and VP $1.5 million, and the President $2 Million a year, would both attract better people to the job and insulate them better from the influence of corporate money. And we wouldn’t have to deal with them voting themselves a raise every year. Something to think about. Not only if they made a lot more money, it would be a lot harder to influence them with a promise of a great job and a tip on what stock to buy, it would attract a better class of crook candidate. It would probably be a lot cheaper in the long run.

Definately an idea with debate.

Unintended Consequences of the PC War

By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/2014

The News, Blogs, and even MSM are full of the unintended consequences of the PC War. The PC War is the Politically Correct War protecting Multiculturalism by silencing the truth if it doesn’t support the progressive utopian vision of how the world “ought to be”.

The NY Times last week reported , in just one relatively small English city, Rotherham, population 275,000, that at least 1,400 girls were raped by gangs of men over the past decade. A British government inquiry summarized it as follows: "It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators."

As even the NY times noted the primary reason nothing done for 16 years is Political Correctness. Virtually all perpetrators were of "Pakistani heritage" and virtually all the girls were white. Everyone, including the politicians and media agree that PC is the reason. What they won’t acknowledge nor will the American press, is the fact that they are the very ones who created the moral monsters known as political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity.

These doctrines, forbid judging non-whites, Muslims and others by the same moral standards as whites and Christians. As I noted in my previous article, even noting that wage stagnation in the USA coincides with massive amounts of third world immigrants is views as “insensitive” and not to be discussed.

Other news this week shows NBA team owner, Bruce Levenson, is selling the Atlanta Hawks, because his “racially insensitive views” in a private email sent to the team’s general manager and others in the ownership group, were made public. His email contained the following:
when digging into why our season ticket base is so small, i was told it is because we can't get 35-55 white males and corporations to buy season tixs and they are the primary demo for season tickets around the league. when i pushed further, folks generally shrugged their shoulders. then i start looking around our arena during games and notice the following:

— it's 70 pct black

— the cheerleaders are black

— the music is hip hop

— at the bars it's 90 pct black

— there are few fathers and sons at the games

— we are doing after game concerts to attract more fans and the concerts are either hip hop or gospel.

Then I start looking around at other arenas. It is completely different. Even DC with its affluent black community never has more than 15 pct black audience.

Before we bought the hawks and for those couple years immediately after in an effort to make the arena look full (at the nba's urging) thousands and thousands of tickets were being giving away, predominantly in the black community, adding to the overwhelming black audience.

My theory is that the black crowd scared away the whites and there are simply not enough affluent black fans to build a signficant season ticket base.

Levenson appears to be taking a hard honest look at the Hawks and their fan base. He also notes stark reality writing, “I think Southern whites simply were not comfortable being in an arena or at a bar where they were in the minority.” In the “offensive email” some of his suggestions were to hire “some white cheerleaders” and play “music familiar to a 40-year-old white guy.”

What is missing is the reason he thinks that. The reason is very un-PC. If your read the extremely well documented “ White Girl Bleed A Lot': The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It”, you’ll see that the USA is not without violence that the PC War allowed to be perpetrated in Britain. In America, right now, roving gangs of black youth routinely commit massive acts of violence, vandalism, and mayhem, targeted at whites. It is not politically correct to note that this is a clear demographically predictable behavior. Google the “knock out game” and research it yourself, the news stories are edited because of the PC War, but the youtube videos make it pretty clear.

Black Economist and editorialist, Thomas Sowell had this to say about the book. “More dangerous than these highly publicized episodes over the years are innumerable organized and unprovoked physical attacks on whites by young black gangs in shopping malls, on beaches and in other public places all across the country today.

While some of these attacks make it into the media as isolated incidents, the nationwide pattern of organized black on white attacks by thugs remains invisible in the mainstream media.”

Sowell notes that “Even when these attacks are accompanied by shouts of anti-white rhetoric and exultant laughter at the carnage, the racial makeup of the attackers and their victims is usually ignored by the media, and public officials often deny that race has anything to do with what happened.”

Levenson thinks that “Southern whites simply were not comfortable being in an arena or at a bar where they were in the minority,” because he’s not blind and the reality is, in urban areas with majority black populations, white people from the suburbs are not safe so don’t generally go to events where they are in the minority.

The facts are clear, despite making the playoff in seven consecutive seasons, the Hawks struggle at the gate. Last season they were ranked 28th in home attendance, ahead of only the 76ers and the Bucks. The hawks franchise is valued at less than $500 Million according to Forbes. I suspect the email and it being made public may be a gambit to try and take advantage of the PC War to artificially increase the sale price of what is clearly a less profitable franchise, so that probable buyers are forced to ignore the demographics of the Hawks fan base as a rationally to keep the price realistic. It worked for the Clippers.

Other news reported by WMC Action News 5 show video of Kroger employee attacked and beaten into unconsciousness by a horde of vibrant youth while working. The PC War keeps Action News from reporting the race of the violent horde but the video is clear. “A witness says he was standing there watching the fight as it happened. He declined to go on camera but told WMC he thought the hitting and kicking started after a Kroger employee exchanged words with a young man in the parking lot, over a shopping basket. “

If you look at demographics and history it is clear, multiculturalism doesn’t work. Those societies that function well are generally ethnically homogenous. What history and observation make objectively clear is that at less than 95% homogeneity the mutual benefits of inter-ethnic relations, deteriorate dramatically, but it also appears to be dependent upon the behavior of the minority. Immigrants that came to America with the idea and purpose to become American, learning the language, and adopting the customs did well and did not disrupt society. Think Irish and Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century.

There is a reason Zimbabwe is now almost entirely black and Iraq has purged itself of Jews and Christians. World history is replete with almost constant ethnic or religious cleansing of some kind almost always taking place somewhere.

It’s not politically correct but there is only “strength in diversity” when diversity is limited. America was made great by uniform shared beliefs. Embracing political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity, has resulted in England tolerating rapists, and America tolerating roving bands of violent thugs, because it is not PC to recognize that the value of some cultures are less than civilized.

Michael Savage may be right if we don’t protect our “borders, language, and culture” our society will falter. It happened to Rome, it is happening to England and much of Europe.

It may not be PC but in Britain they are starting to listen to the words of Enoch Powell.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Honest Talk About Immigration

By Tom Rhodes, 9/9/2014

Racist Racist Racist – soon as anybody tries to have a serious talk about immigration and its effects on societies if the ideas even discussed don’t support the progressive utopian vision for how the world ought to be, instead of how the world is, and the real observable facts concerning immigration, they are labeled a racist. The label of racist no longer carries any weight, so let’s take an honest look at immigration and the current employment statistics in the USA.

The number of foreign-born individuals holding jobs in the United States hit a recorded high of 24,639,000 in August, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS has been tracking the number of foreign-born workers annually since 2005 and monthly since 2007. The BLS does not distinguish between foreign-born individuals who are in the United States legally and those who are here illegally.

The BLS also reports that there are 9.6 million unemployed Americans. Maybe just maybe if we didn’t allow such a huge number of foreigners into the country we might not have massive unemployment. Even if there isn’t an exact match between the skills employers are seeking and the skills possessed by the 10 million unemployed Americans, it is painfully clear that when you consider that for every unemployed American, there are 2.6 foreign-born workers, mass migration has significantly depressed American wages by artificially increasing the supply of workers, and is a primary factor in keeping the country from full employment.

The lie that immigration is good for our economy, fails in the face of observed reality, that despite the largest mass immigration in our history, our overall economy is at best stagnant, and has been since the beginning of the millennium. Other Western economies have and are experiencing the exact same phenomena.

Since 1965 when we drastically changed our immigration policy, we’ve absorbed about 50 million people, about a quarter of our population, from mostly third world countries. That corresponds to the time where middle class wages started to stagnate, and where the wages for low skill jobs depressed. Massive numbers of people from the third world have changed the face of employment in the USA. Pointing out this fact is not racist, it is simply observable truth.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Can There Be Too Much Government?

“There's a debate about whether mother's milk is good or bad for infants -- a preposterous debate, considering the historical success of nursing manifested by a world population of 7 billion. If government authorities, such as the Food and Drug Administration, conclude that mother's milk is hazardous, I'm wondering where they're going to put the warning label.” ~ Dr. Walter Williams, Sept. 2014

Question to ask your statist (Democrat or Republican) friend:

When has the government gone too far? What can/do we do about it?