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.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
