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

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Freedom of Speech in the USA is Dead

By Tom Rhodes, 4/30/2014

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre. Talk to any Libertarian, and they will whole heartedly support that position. Outside of libertarians not only would others not say that, they would advocate taking away your fundamental property rights based on what you say in private. The sentiments concerning freedom of speech are dead in the USA.

In 1977 the ACLU came to the defense of National Socialist Party of America in the Skokie Affair. What the Illinois Nazi’s were saying and the reasons behind their assembly in Skokie were reprehensible, but in the USA the entire culture worked under the belief that Freedom of Speech was more important than sissified people having their feelings hurt. Where is the ACLU and what is its position concerning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling?

His public actions and words concerning race relations are laudable enough that Sterling was about to be acknowledged and rewarded by none other than the NAACP. Now because of the criminal actions of his ex-mistress, Miss V. Stiviano, illegally recording a clearly private conversation, Sterling is being deprived of property rights. Other than in the court of public opinion, the tape recording of Sterling’s racist rant is clearly not admissible, and V. Stiviano’s actions are criminal. Why isn’t she being prosecuted for her crime?

It appears that in the USA “expressing unpopular views in private” is now justification to take away private property rights, be banned from exercising your rights to use your property, or even go to public facilities. It would be nice to see the clause in the NBA Constitution that says the owners can force an owner to sell his team based on illegally obtained recordings of private conversations expressing unpopular views.

Considering what the press, and NBA are doing when a private conversation expressing racist views is illegally recorded and then made public, what are they going to do about Larry Johnson publically calling for the formation of a segregated all negro basketball league? Will he too be banned? His comments were equally racist and unlike Sterling’s were very public. In reality this is probably a power play by big money corporatists to use Miss Stiviano was a honey trap, to sway public opinion in order to provide a politically correct excuse to allow the NBA to give a major media market to the Guggenheim Partners and Michael Milken, but the ramifications for our culture, freedoms, and rights are vast.

Sterling is an obscenely rich bastard, I hope he fights tooth and nail to keep his property, and takes down the entire NBA with him. His public actions and words, not the illegally recorded, inadmissible, private comments to his ex-mistress, should be the only thing the NBA or press or possibly the courts be allowed to consider. Have we really come to the point where property rights can legally be taken away for what you say in private? Do we really want a world where you must assume everything you say in one-on-one private conversations is being recorded and can and will be used against you?

If the NBA owners vote to force him to sell the Clippers and Sterling takes them to court, it would force public exposure of the NBA constitution, which, unlike his illegally recorded private comments, are not currently publically available. It would be interesting to see what contractual rationale there is to force the sale of private property. The NBA probably has a case for forcing him out because of poor moral character, his public affair as evidenced by the public suit his wife is bringing against Miss V. Stiviano, clearly demonstrates Sterling’s poor moral character. Unless being an adulterous lecher in breach of his legally binding marriage contract is now considered a positive moral trait. Unlike his illegally obtained private comments these may be substantial grounds for forcing the sale of the Clippers, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t a line of either inquiry or thinking the NBA wants to explore.

Make no doubt about it, Sterling’s private remarks were deplorable racism, but they were private. Have we really come to a place where we accept the contents of illegal surveillance, which only revealed, clearly protected, even if unpopular, racist opinion and no criminal act as the justification to deprive an individual private property rights? Especially when all his public deeds and words concerning race are so laudable that the NAACP would reward a white guy?

It appears that is no sports personality, no major press organization, and no elected official willing to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why? Unless there is a huge outcry from the press, and elected officials for the prosecution V. Stiviano’s obvious crime we can safely assume that this silence in both calling for justice and support of free speech, is evidence that the First Amendment is dead in the USA, and that there is in fact no right to privacy. The actions of the government and the compliant main stream media make it clear that freedom in the USA today is more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR than the country which back in 1976 declared that although the Illinois Nazi’s speech is deplorable, you cannot stop such speech nor deprive such speakers of life, liberty or property, for merely exercising their right to free speech. Today we routinely deprive people of property based on mere exercising their right to free speech.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Look Her in the Eye

4/28/2014 12:01:00 AM - Mike Adams

Teenager: Dr. Adams, may I have a few minutes to speak with you?

Me: Sure. What is your name? (Gives name).

Teen: I enjoyed listening to your talk on abortion just a few minutes ago. Your points were solid. But I have just one problem. It’s with the rape exception. Can you honestly tell me that you could look a rape victim in the eye and tell her that she could not have an abortion and that she must take the rapist’s baby to term?

Me: (pulls out phone). Yes. Give me the number of any pregnant rape victim you know and I will call her right now and talk to her. I can’t look her in the eye but I will talk to her.

Teen: (Laughing nervously). I don’t know any pregnant rape victims.

Me: Well, before I put my phone up, can I ask a favor of you?

Teen: Sure.

Me: I have a friend who was conceived in rape. Do you mind if I call her and give you the phone so you could explain why it would be permissible for her be killed just because she was conceived in rape? Her mother is still alive, by the way. I’m sure that her continued existence reminds her mother of the rape. My friend’s name is Laura.

Teen: No, I won’t do that. She shouldn’t be killed, now. That isn’t my position.

Me: Oh, I see. You think that there is some difference between the adult she is now and the embryo she once was that would have justified killing her at that earlier stage of development.

Teen: I see what you are doing. This is the SLED thing, isn’t it?

Me: Yes it is. Size, level of development, environment (whether she is inside or outside of the womb), and degree of dependency. These are the four differences people generally rely upon when they say you can kill the unborn but not the born. Which one is it?

Teen: Well, none of them, I guess. I see your point.

Me: Good. Now, let’s talk about who benefits when the child conceived in rape is aborted.

Teen: Ok.

Me: Would I, or any of the close friends of Laura, have benefited from her death at the hands of the abortion doctor? I mean, would it not have been a tragedy had her friends never known her?

Teen: Well, yes, I suppose it would have been a tragedy.

Me: Well, how about Laura? Would she have benefited from the abortion?

Teen: No, of course not.

Me: Ok, then who benefits?

Teen: Well, the rape victim benefits. Obviously.

Me: But is it really obvious?

Teen: I think it is.

Me: You know if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex and has a crisis pregnancy it is a toss-up as to whether she will have the abortion. But if she’s raped and becomes pregnant then the chances she’ll abort are much lower.

Teen: How much lower?

Me: The odds are about three to one that she won’t abort. It may seem counterintuitive but it really isn’t difficult to understand upon further consideration. She’s just been the victim of a violent crime. She identifies with the evil of violence and is reluctant to inflict it on another human being. So she usually decides to suffer evil rather than inflict it.

Teen: I’ll have to think about that one.

Me: Good. It will give me time to ask you another question.

Teen: Okay.

Me: You believe that the woman impregnated by a rapist will suffer great stress bringing the baby to term. You obviously believe that the abortion will reduce that stress. But your argument turns on the assertion that the stress saved by the abortion will actually outweigh any guilt she might experience over the memory of the abortion for the duration of her life. Is that a fair characterization of your reasoning?

Teen: Yes, that’s fair enough.

Me: Well, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you point me to some evidence?

Teen: No, I was just speculating.

Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.

Teen: Well maybe I just have some maturing to do as I think about this issue.

Me: I’m not sure it’s really a thinking problem.

Teen: What do you mean?

Me: You have a steady girlfriend, don’t you?

Teen: Yes, I do.

Me: Are you sleeping with her?

Teen: What? I’m not answering that question.

Me: Well, you don’t have to answer it. You just did. You’re sleeping with her.

Teen: Ok … what does that have to do with the discussion?

Me: Well, everything.

Teen: Please explain.

Me: Every time I am in a discussion of abortion that turns to the so called rape exception, there are two common denominators. First, it is always a guy. Second, he’s always sexually active. If he is sleeping with a lot of women he really supports unrestricted abortion. So he just feigns concern for the rape victim in order to preserve unrestricted abortion so he can have unrestricted sex. Then there are guys like you who are just sleeping with a girlfriend and want to preserve a tiny crack in the wall — a safety valve just in case you get into trouble. The idea of an absolute ban on abortion makes you nervous because you are taking risks you know you ought not to be taking.

Teen: I guess everything you are saying makes sense. Maybe I just need to grow up.

Me: No, not really. You pulled me aside and started this conversation because your conscience was bothering you. You weren’t really worried about the rape issue. You were worried about your own circumstances. That’s why it took courage to initiate the conversation. You knew I wasn’t going say things you wanted to hear. You were mature at the beginning of this conversation and you are even more mature now.

Teen: Thanks.

Me: Now it is time to stop treating you girlfriend like she’s already your wife. It will clear your mind and help you make better decisions on a whole range of moral issues. Remember that it is always better to decide what you believe and let your beliefs guide your behavior. When it’s the other way around, you become lost and you eventually lose your moral compass altogether. You eventually become a law unto yourself.

Teen: Well, how do I explain this to my girlfriend?

Me: Well, that should be easy. Tell her you are not yet ready to be a parent. Tell her that if she became pregnant it would be your child, too. Make sure you look her in the eye and firmly tell her that you could never allow her to abort your child. In other words, start living your life according to rules instead of clinging to exceptions.

+++++++++++++

Editors Note: I stole this from Mike Adams Because it is one of the best arguments against to abortion.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Democracy in America is Dead.

by Tom Rhodes, 4/24/2014

I know, I know, I know, we live in a republic not a democracy, but the title sounds better in today’s world. As Rome fell, history shows that the representatives of the people, the senate, became irrelevant, the de facto system was rule by a single man and his minions who had the power to kill citizens without due process, create new laws, and ignore existing laws. Does this sound familiar. Today Obama orders the murder of citizens without due process, creates laws with the stroke of the pen, and simply ignores laws he doesn’t like.

Early in the Obama administration I was pilloried by people for claiming Obama was acting like a fascist dictator in my articles about him destroying the rule of law concerning the bankruptcy of GM, the BP Oil Spill, and failure to prosecute Black Panthers. The facts make it clear that I was right. Obama is acting like a two bit dictator. Concerning Obamacare, the President made it clear that regardless of the machinations of the Republicans, the ACA and it’s individual mandate is the “law of the land.” That same law contained very specific and unambiguous language and requirements on start dates, who was required to do what, etc. So, when that same law didn’t make him and his party look good, he simply ignores the “law of the land” and changes it with the stroke of a pen, and congress and the senate do nothing. Changing the ACA by decree is not “democracy.” Congress and the Senate are powerless, their laws are meaningless.

We are no longer a nation of laws, ruled by law, but are now a nation ruled by oligarchy who can dictate new law regardless of the input of the democratically elected representatives the people. This is a very dangerous development that fundamentally transforms the country in ways that will be chaotic. Obama did say he was going to “Fundamentally Change America.” You just didn’t realize it was to turn in from a nation of laws, to a statist tyranny.

We are starting to see massive amounts of Americans routinely ignore the law, to the point where armed citizens are standing up to the government. The BLM backed down in Nevada, they thought an overwhelming show of force would run Bundy off his families century old cattle ranch, instead they were met with an even more overwhelming armed militia, who were prepared to fight for their rights and heritage. Not at all what the government expected. This is what the second amendment is about. Notice that the people didn’t start shooting, but were prepared to fight the government if it choose to use tyrannical force against Bundy.

Rather than capitulate and meet the April 15 deadline, the good people of New York had parties, where they publicly defied NY’s law to register their sporting firearms, and burned their registration forms. Connecticut did the same. It appears that well over 90% of the people simply refuse to obey laws requiring them to register their “assault weapons” and get rid of their standard capacity (30rd) magazines. In Connecticut 2/3rds of law enforcement officers, privately own an assault weapon, and failed to register them as required. Who’s going to enforce the tyranny of the state?

In the USA the president and other elected officials are not royalty, and the people don’t consider them royalty, they are just citizens like the rest of us. So . . . the fact that if the rulers in DC don’t have to obey the law, or can make it up as they want, means the people can too. Without any law to justify his actions, Obama is imposing de facto amnesty on a huge number of illegal aliens through changing the deportation process. Try to illegally move to Mexico, Netherlands, or any number of countries, and you’ll be jailed for a time then deported faster than you can say “Taco.” But break the law and illegally enter the USA, and you get Do the same to the United States, and you get taxpayer-provided health care at the local emergency room, and your kids get in-state tuition, while Johnny from Iowa has to pay higher out of state tuition and is forced to buy overpriced insurance.

Think about it, if you’re from Iowa and you’re kid wants to go to USC, you’ll save tens of thousands of dollars if you renounce your citizenship and live illegally in the country instead of following the law. It’s not like they’ll deport you. If the ruling elite in Washington have their way as in illegal resident, you be able to vote.

Obama has set the example, his subordinates and the bureaucrats are doing the same. Note BLM’s claim that Bundy owes over $1Million dollars is not based on any law passed by congress, but on them creating law as they see fit, that’s why they don’t want to go to court. Each action, new “regulation” that carries the force of law but was not legislatively created, each choice to exclude the enforcement for those the like without any consequences for the ruling elite in dictating rather than serving the citizens of the USA harmed the fabric of our society.

Democracy is dead, the only thing stopping third world style tyranny is the Second amendment and the 80Million of us who choose to exercise and refuse to compromise our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. BLM actions in Nevada were a trial balloon to see how/if the people will react. Hate to say it folks, but the Great Republic that was the USA is dead. This country is going to dissolve into pieces, the reason is clear. Too many of us are unwilling to give up our rights to the oligarchy in DC, and those in DC are too arrogant to see it. What’s more they don’t believe we’ll fight to keep our rights. Although it sounds like a trite paraphrase of Fore Fathers famous “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!” our government is too stupid to realize that far too many people would rather “Live Free or Die.” Look at We The People’s actions in response to BLM tyranny in Nevada. This country was founded by people who rebelled against central authority and control, that rebel spirit lives.

Our Democracy is dead; the ruling elite have so limited and controlled the elections offering us two flavors of statists, Democrat and Republican, and now simply choose to ignore even those representatives; the people now have no moral or rational reason to respect any law. Once we were a republic ruled by law, and men who understood divided power, checks and balances, and limited government; now we are ruled by the whims of a statist despotic oligarchy who believe they have unlimited power. Free men can and will take up arms and will fight tyranny. Are you a free man? Are you willing to fight tyranny? Or are you a slave, who will cower at your master and hope to be allowed to keep enough to survive? Or are you a slave, who willing supports your master, thankfully trading your liberty for the “security” he promises. Or are you fooled by a tyrannical master, who gives you meager shabby food and shelter, proclaiming they are your “entitlements?”

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Statists Pervert the Concept – Pay it Forward

By Tom Rhodes, 4/17/2014

Pay if Forward, an OK movie if you like emotional chick flicks, but it is an old and venerated charitable concept that is grounded on voluntarily helping others and asking them to voluntarily do the same when they can. Pay it forward was used as a key plot element in the denouement of a Comedy play by Menander, Dyskolos, a prizewinning play in ancient Athens in 317 BC. The concept was rediscovered and described by Benjamin Franklin, who in a letter to Benjamin Webb in 1784, said, “I do not pretend to give such a deed; I only lend it to you. When you [...] meet with another honest Man in similar Distress, you must pay me by lending this Sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the Debt by a like operation, when he shall be able, and shall meet with another opportunity. I hope it may thus go thro' many hands, before it meets with a Knave that will stop its Progress. This is a trick of mine for doing a deal of good with a little money.”

Pay it forward is an expression for describing the beneficiary of a good deed repaying it to others instead of to the original benefactor. The concept is old, but the phrase may have been coined by Lily Hardy Hammond in her 1916 book In the Garden of Delight.

On my way into work this morning listening to Morning Edition on NPR, I heard a story titled “Pay It Forward Proposal Could Help Students Afford College” by Leah Binkovitz. The story on their web page is described as a “new idea is making the rounds in education circles. Under the plan, states would allow students to go to college for free then they would pay back a percentage of their salaries after they graduate.”

This is a sick perversion of the old noble concept of Pay it forward. As proposed the state pays for students go to college, and after they graduate pay back to the state a percentage of their income based on their salary. The result will be students who get STEM degrees and garner high paying jobs will actually subsidize those who get “woman’s studies” degrees and end up working as bartenders, waitresses, and cab drivers. This program is not Pay it forward, this is “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. This is a typical ploy of socialists who since the proven failure of Marxist ideology, attempt to cover their Marxist programs as anything other than socialism.

The concept of Paying if Forward is based voluntary charity, and hoping that a good deed will propagate itself and improve not only the life of the person you helped but nurture the idea and generosity of that person. This program is not based on the hope that a good deed will be propagated, accepting the risk that some Knave may stop its progress. The program described on NPR and proposed in the state of Michigan is not a “new idea.” It is based on redistribution of wealth without risk. It is simply a socialist system for higher education.

This program disguises itself as “charity” but it’ not. If it were truly a version of Paying if Forward, there would be no strings attached, a State or some foundation would simply say, “We believe in you, and are going to pay for your degree, all we ask is when you succeed you support us with as much as you can until you feel your debt has been paid so we can continue to Paying if Forward.” The plan proposed is not paying it forward, it is another way for statists and liberals to try and feel good about using the force of government to redistribute wealth, rather than be charitable themselves.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Harry Reid’s Hypocrisy

By Tom Rhodes, 4/16/2014

Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In the aftermath of federal agents withdrawing from the Nevada property of rancher Cliven Bundy, Reid commented to students at the University of Nevada that “… it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

Mr. Reid, Does that sentiment apply to people who entered this country illegally?

Mr. Reid, does that apply to President Obama, dictating to his administration to ignore the Jan 1st deadline as part of the ACA?

Mr. Reid, does that apply to the Senate majority leader violated Senate ethics rules by using his official website to attack libertarian campaign donors Charles and David Koch?

Mr. Reid, you actions seem to indicate that you don’t believe in the Rule of Law, rather that you believe that the laws only apply to those you don’t like and won’t vote for you, and those who you do like and will vote for you are exempted from following the law.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Statists Lose in Supreme Court

By Tom Rhodes, 4/3/2013

By now you’ve read and heard the statist news media bemoan the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution stating that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech it meant what it plainly says. This is a victory for freedom and liberty, and a loss for statism.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

What statists, especially liberals, don’t like, don’t want, and actually hate, is the fact that in the USA the government not the people is limited. The idea that an individual may exercise freedom and do things that are contrary to the supremacy of the state is repugnant to statists. There is this think called freedom. Statists hate it. Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Free Press, are all under massive attack by statists.

They are attacking bloggers, and other people because they bring stories that the main stream news ignores to the attention of the people. Stories statists don’t want covered. The idea that an individual, the little guy, a common person can freely blog and present “news” outside of corporate/state control is a position statists find intolerable. This is why Hillary famously said that the news needs some “gatekeeper.” Of course the fact that that the Government is prohibited from infringing on the right of people to offer news and opinion without any kind of government interference means they are exposed. The internet has destroyed the defacto state/press control of media that used to exist. Statists hate this.

They also attack rich people spending their money to get their ideas presented. Again the idea that an individual can actually put his resources to promoting candidates and ideas without going through some state “gatekeeper” and without limits is intolerable. Freedom for the individual is not an idea statists can abide. It is a red-herring that individuals having too much freedom to spend their money on politics causes corruption.

The court rightly found that it makes no sense that an individual can give the limited amount to nine candidates, but not the 10th.

The Constitution is clear, Congress cannot abridge the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Spending money to promote a candidate or idea has long been held as the exercise of those freedoms. There is one way in the USA to make such laws constitutional. Change the constitution. I don’t think changing the 1st Amendment to read “Congress shall have the authority to limit how much individuals may spend expressing their ideas, especially concerning political candidates, and may create laws to act as “gatekeepers” to the press determining who can and can’t publish the news and what news is suitable for the public, and what government actions are “newsworthy” is going to fly. That is exactly how statists want to treat individuals from poor basement bloggers to wealthy eccentrics, they don’t want the individual to have the ability nor right to actually effect politics.

The constitution was written uniquely not to grant privileges to the people, but to curb and limit the powers of government. The reasoning was clear and is as viable today as 2 centuries ago; limiting government insures liberty and freedom for individuals, dividing power in government helps reduce the corruption that power inevitably brings.

The solution is take away power from centralized government so that even if a politician is bought off they won’t have the power to hurt us. Corruption in government is not the result of individuals having too much freedom, but government having too much power.

Secret to Being Health and Happy: Eat Meat

Another Study Confirms what casual observation has noted for decades; Vegans are nuts. Vegitarian Diet is not healthier.

Nutrition and Health – The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study

The study concludes that "adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment."

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Culture Worth Protecting

By Tom Rhodes, 4/1/2014

Yesterday in “Ugly History” I asked “Why not compare the size scope and power of centralized government with income inequality here in the USA and abroad?” The answer is clear, the less centralized power the less income inequality and better overall standard of living for more people. History is also clear that less central authority is not the norm, in fact power being concentrated in a few or even one person is the norm. The bigger question would be, what is different about the USA that resulted in a disproportionately powerful country with a relatively high standard of living for just about everybody.

The answer is culture; specifically Modern Western Culture. No not all cultures should be valued or accepted as equal, Modern Western Civilization as a culture is in fact superior to other cultures. Starting in ancient Greece, then the Roman Empire, to the British Empire and culminating in the United States. Western culture has not only been more successful any other culture but superior to 90% of all other cultures. If you emptied the USA of its people and put the people of other cultures, say Venezuela, or Iran, or Pakistan, or any population of a Sub Saharan African nation in the USA it would soon become the backwater third world cesspool, resembling that nation. Western Civilization emphasizes innovation, capitalism, science, technology, Christianity, freedom, individual rights, and individualism.

The biggest aspect of Western Civilization that made the USA greater than even the European nations it originated is our abandonment of aristocracy with the assumption that all individual are sovereign. The USA is a Merit-Based society where even a black man whose foreign father from a third world nation can rise to President. Your tribe, caste, heritage, etc. are meaningless. Consider Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, of yesteryear or Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg of today; you probably can’t name their parents, what school they went to, or (other than European) their heritage, because it isn’t important. What is important is how they made life better for their fellow members of society and were justly rewarded by society voluntarily buying the products and services they provide. By and large the USA is a merit-based society, or at least was. Our culture is changing, we now have our mini-aristocrats like the Kennedy or Bush families. As we move to centralized authority, protect the established from competition, and punish success, the more stratified, stagnant and aristocratic we become as a culture.

Unlike Rome and Britian the USA has not used is awesome power to conquer the rest of the world. Well for a large part of our history we didn’t, but today we “nation build” and take other aristocratic actions thinking we know better how people should live than they do themselves. The reason the USA doesn’t just go and take and conquer other nations (which we could) is fairly fundamental. It is the root of our greatness. We believe in individual sovereignty. We distrust to our very core government and central authority. Nothing is more fundamentally American that a deep seated mistrust of government. Our Forefathers so distrusted a strong central government that when creating a new government it divided it’s powers, and severely limited the powers central government could have.

The fact is that the bigger and more powerful the government becomes, the smaller, weaker and poorer the people become. We used to be fanatical about small, decentralized government. Remember the old cliché “Don’t make a federal case about it”? that cliché is all but gone from modern speech, as the rationale for it no longer makes sense. As we move further away from the principle of limited government, we move in to the expected economic stagnation, militarized police state, massive debt, and tyranny from our government. The idea that the government can dictate what products or services you must, by law, be required to purchase, is so un-American that now implemented, it is tearing our country apart.

We quit protecting our culture, and have allowed failed cultures that grant totalitarian authority to some religious leaders, or autocrat, or oligarchy to infest ours. By granting non-western cultures equal status as our modern Western Culture we are seeding the demise of our culture to demonstrably inferior cultures with centralize authority to dictate how people live. No other culture grants any individual the right to rise to historic levels of wealth and power based on his own merit alone. Of course such a culture is inherently risky, it also allows individuals to fail, even to the point of impoverishment. There is no freedom from privation, starvation, and negative consequences of poor life decisions when you have the liberty to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. As we allow those who value security, safety, and surety of knowing they won’t suffer if they fail to provide for themselves, to garner more voice in how we are governed, we lose the very culture that created an obesity epidemic in our poor. Name another culture where the poor suffer from obesity rather than starvation.

From the great abundance that our culture has produced has also come the most generous people the world ever saw. Earthquake, tsunami, flood, or whatever disaster nature or man may cause anywhere in the world, and the private charity and generosity of the people of the USA will literally flood the victims with food, water, money, and people to help. No other culture produces people so willing to materially sacrifice for their fellow man. This spirit of charity comes from the Christian roots of our culture. The people of no Islamic culture are so generous, nor are the people of a pagan culture so generous, nor are the people of an atheistic culture so generous. Whether an American is a Christian or not, Modern Western Culture is deeply rooted in Christianity. The basis of Christianity is free will, individual choice; the belief that you have a choice to be a Christian and receive all the benefits or reject Christ and suffer the consequences. Modern Western Culture is based on that idea, liberty and libertarian thought are rooted in biblical truth.

The questions are why and what is different about the USA. The answer was the Culture. We must return our culture to the values that made the USA the greatest nation the world ever saw. If we don’t it will turn into another third world tyrannical cesspool where might makes right and rights are granted to some not guaranteed to all. It’s April Fool’s Day, the joke is on us, only fools believes that you can accept massive numbers of people into your country that don’t share your culture and expect to keep and maintain your culture.