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

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Star Wars: The Farce Awakens

By Tom Rhodes, 12/22/2015

I’ll start by saying I’m an old Star Wars fan and ‘The Force Awakens’ is entertaining and action packed but fails if you even attempt to think about it. The funny scenes and homage to the original Star Wars make it worth seeing. . . . . after it’s in the $5 DVD bin at Walmart. Stop reading if you haven’t seen it and don’t want any spoilers. The Farce Awakens is a feminized retelling of first Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope.

Let’s start with a great positive. TMZ and others have been trying to get Mark Hamill to reveal or hint at Star Wars participation. His dismissal of Star Wars as movies he doesn’t watch, and elusion to not being a part of ‘The Force Awakens‘ and other crap he’s thrown at the press , was acting for the paparazzi. Showing up in the last scene looking like Luke turned into Obi Wan, was a great ending to the movie. Hamill’s treatment of the press and paparazzi is arguably better acting than any of the acting by other characters in the movie except R2D2, and neither Luke or R2D2 speak. The only redeeming acting of a speaking part must be given to Harrison Ford, who pulled Hans Solo with style, and the Chewy-Solo relationship was still the best developed character relationship in the movie. It should be the last we’ll ever see of Hans Solo, unless they do the ghost thing like they did with Kenobi episodes V and VI.

Droid aside, thank God there was no Yoda, Jar-Jar, Ewok, or other cutesy supporting character.

Problems in no particular order:

  • Darth Vader, Luke, Kylo Ren, Obi Wan Kenobi, and all other force using experts in any previous Star Wars story, needed training based on years of apprenticeship with a 24/7 mentor to master the force. The entire premise of Jedi powers is that they must being “learned” and they develop over time with practice. Our heroine Rey, hinted heavily as being Luke’s daughter, instantly and without training or foreknowledge gets abilities with the force that took all other Jedi, Sith, decades to develop. So with no Jedi’s around, how does she even know the force can control weak minded storm troopers, much less use the old “you don’t need to see his papers” shtick.

  • How can Rey without any training best Kylo Ren, the emo Darth Vader, with a light saber, while Kylo Ren has had years of training with the force? Even though Vader, Anakin Skywalker, in his youth like Rey showed signs of mechanical genius and native ability with the force, to become proficient took years of training and a mentor? When Luke first picked up a light sabre, he couldn’t deflect a laser pointer from a training drone much less use it effectively. After training with both Kenobi and Yoda, Luke got his hand chopped off by Vader. The whole “force” in Rey defies the entire premise of the Jedi and use of the force in the previous 6 movies. How come the only character to get the ability and skill to use the force without putting in the work and effort is a girl? Rey’s abilities make a farce of the force.

  • Rey is the most developed character in the whole movie and she has virtually no character development. We have no idea about her past, motivations, anything. Who or what was support system that enabled her to survive on this planet? Why is she in such good health and obviously well fed when she can only scrounge up half rations daily? At least little Anakin was a slave with his mother and we have some idea how and why he survived and turned out the way he did. Who and why is she waiting on a junkers planet? No story, and no reason to actually care for or about her other than the hint she’s Luke’s daughter.

  • How many times can we see a movie blowing up the Death Star, with the Millennium Falcon flying out of the fiery explosion in the last second. Both in its size and scope, Starkiller Base makes the Death Star and it’s rebuild look like a Sunfish in the America’s Cup. There is a pathetically small Tie Fighter fleet to fleet to protect it? After 40 years both the good guys and the bad guys have made zero developments in fighters, Xwing’s and Tie fighters. Would be like the USA still flying F4 Phantoms instead of F35 Raptors. Hell our navy today has better anti-air guns than the ineffective turbolaser batteries on the Starkiller Base? If the rebel’s launched half their Xwing Fleet, why so few, it’s not like the computers at Lucas Light and Magic, couldn’t have added in a few hundred more fighters for both sides. Even the prequel had new fighters and cooler space ships. Even Jar-Jar had access to cooler underwater ships. The future seems to regress technologically not advance.

  • With no character development, Rey treats her aunts husband Hans Solo as like her missing father and is motivated by his death at the hands of her cousin Kylo Ren. At least there was some character development in episode IV to explain Obi Wan Kenobi and Luke’s relationship before the DarthVader/Kylo Ren kills the old mentor Kenobi/Solo.

  • Fin former storm trooper beats decades of brainwashing as a storm trooper and develops a conscience. This happens after his exposure in one battle, and why is a sanitation worker also an armed storm trooper? And why is the main supporting character and black guy, a garbage man, isn’t that racist? What happened to Storm Troopers being Clones? Why are all other Storm Troopers fearless and willing to run right into the fight and Fin runs away until he has a princess to serve?

  • Trained ever since taken as a child to be a fighting machine, or maybe sanitation worker, nothing Fin does is related to or congruent with Ray, but somehow devotes most of the film to trying to protect her. The bigger problem is this character is a typical feminization of an old male hero tale. ‘The Farce Awakens’ retells the original Star Wars with a woman in the man’s role, only the woman gets the farce without all the hard work, and the male despite his years of training is a bumbling shadow of a man obsessed with the female hero.

  • How did Rey know the history of the Millennium Falcon since it was stolen from Han Solo?

  • The emo Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, hates his dad Hans Solo. He hates him enough to kill him; Why? What happened? What turned him to the Dark Side? He is a flat, emo, undeveloped character with no rationale for why he is where he’s at. He’s just a cardboard cutout of an evil emo kid mad at his Dad.

  • Princess Lea, aka Carrie Fisher, has so much botox her face is a plastic shell and shows no emotion. Her acting is flatter and not even worse than her lame part in the “Blues Brothers.”

  • How can a mere Captain, Captain Phasma, know how to lower the Starkiller’s shields and be able to do it without any higher level of approval, or the immediate knowledge of General Hux and emo-Ren? What part of the “Don’t create a system where the shields can be lowered remotely by low level people, thus allowing the rebels to blow up our world killing weapon memo,” didn’t they get after two Deathstar screw ups. And how did the evil empire, now “First Order” end up allowing women to be captains? When did the entire evil empire become politically correct?

  • Storm Troopers go to the planet and run around, no walkers, no big turbo lasers, no presence on the backward planet, etc. Even the backwater Tatooine out on the outer rim had Storm Trooper’s around and heavy weapons. Etc.

  • Han and Lea breakup, no reasoning; Luke training Han’s son, Kylo Ren in the farce, why, where, etc; Luke abandoning his light sabre, and a bunch of other stuff are either bad writing or teasers for possible future movies, the problem is that there are so many holes and missing plot motivators that the follow up movies are going to be worse than ewoks.

  • Lea still a general in the Resistance after 40 years. Didn’t the Rebels defeated the Empire. Changing the name of the Empire to the First Order is kind of lame. How did the First Order/Empire get so powerful again, and regain control of the Storm Troopers? Since they have been raising Storm Troopers from children it’s obvious the Empire/First Order in control has been around again for a while. Why is Lea still general of the “Resistance” shouldn’t that be the Republic?

  • After 4o years as a general in the “resistance couldn’t the First Order/Empire have her assignated or blow up her planet? Look, even the USA got Osama Bin Laden, no way she could be active in the rebellion and not be targeted and destroyed. Boba Fet wasn’t the only assassin in the galaxy. I guess you could say she’s like Castro, he lasted about that long. The difference being Castro was pretty much contained and had no ability to actually hurt the USA. Her position as rebel general, unlike Han Solo returning to smuggling is unbelievable.

  • C3PO – has a red arm and quips about it being why Han Solo doesn’t recognize him. Who cares that over a period of 40 years a cyborg gets a new arm and whoever paid for that arm was too cheap to strip off the red paint. The entire C3PO character in ‘The Force Awakens’ is a cameo just to keep the pattern of him, R2D2 and Chewy being in every Star Wars movie. Here, unlike episodes IV and V, C3PO adds nothing to the story.

    Disney did “Guardians of the Galaxy,” a sci-fi movie with as much action, wit, and humor, with great special effects, and a ton of character development with an equal number of characters. JJ Abrams did better character development in his Star Trek rehashes. We know the studio, director, and other people involved have the skill and ability to tell good stories with great characters, why with such good material and a good base to use, did they create such a poor story and such cardboard characters? The overt effort to make a female centric retelling of the episode IV, detracts from and gets in the way of a good story.

    I only like Episode VII, The Force Awakens, as a homage to the first two Star Wars movies. Like Ewoks go wild (Episode VI), and the 3 movie Anakin is a spoiled brat (episodes I-III) prequel, episode VII, The Force Awakens, is not a good story. I think it’s just a hacked add for Disney’s StarWars rides and merchandising to further Disney investment and freshen up the StarWars brand and give Disney another princess. When episode VII comes out on BluRay, I won’t waste any money to it to my collection (maybe when it’s in the $5 Walmart video bin). I hope episode VIII tells and shows a better story, but I’m pretty sure I spent my last theater dollar for any Star Wars movie on ‘The Force Awakens,’ and I’ll wait for Episode VIII to be streamed, or the BlueRay costs less than a movie ticket.
  • Wednesday, November 25, 2015

    Thanksgiving - Celebrating Private Property's Triumph Over Collectivism

    By Tom Rhodes, 11/23/2015
    I doubt anybody will notice but this as a repeat of my 2010 Thanksgiving article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tuesday, November 3, 2015

    So Much for that Scientific Consensus

    by Tom Rhodes, 11/3/2015

    The scientific consensus on global warming simply doesn’t exist. NASA confirms Antarctic ice growing not shrinking. If global warming were a fact, and the science supported it, the Antarctic ice would not be growing and the papers and scientific research would confirm the facts.

    The published papers on Antarctic ice are conflicting and not in agreement. Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist and lead author of the NASA paper released Friday confirms there is not scientific consensus noting that their findings compared to others are not in agreement, saying, “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

    The so-called scientific consensus concerning global warming simply does not exist.

    Tuesday, October 20, 2015

    Evil of Wealth Disparity

    By Tom Rhodes, 10/20/2015

    Hearing the Democrat Debate, and the cry from progressives all over the social media, one thing is clear. They firmly believe that the inequality in wealth distribution in the USA is a moral evil. For some reason the left takes the idea that because “all men are created equal” that if they don’t share an equal portion of society’s wealth that somehow society is not treating them equally hence a society that does not have equal distribution of wealth is an evil society.

    The left’s solution is to make the wealthy more poor, except for themselves. Hillary make $200K per speech, if she chose she could give a poor family $100K every time she speaks and help lift that family out of poverty and still take home $100K per speech. She obviously doesn’t actually believe in redistribution of her wealth. The question is how does Hillary Clinton making $200,000 per speech hurt the poor? What is morally wrong about Hillary charging as much as others are voluntarily willing to pay for speaking hurt the poor.

    Obviously there is no moral problem with Hillary making mega bucks. What poor family can’t find a job because society choose to pay Hillary $200K for a few hours work? How did her highly paid speech writer, who earns a very good living, hurt the poor by voluntarily accepting a part of Hillary’s evil wealth in exchange for her labor hurt the poor? What moral dictum did Hillary violate earning millions of dollars from her political experience?

    If because all people being created in God’s image have equal worth, thus deserve an equal share of society’s wealth, they why doesn’t a murderer, or rapist, or child molester deserve an equal share of society’s wealth? If their actions and impact on society don’t determine what wealth society should give them, what does? If you believe that their actions (murder, rape, child molestation), should result in society’s punishment, and exclusion (to protect others in society who behave acceptably), then you don’t believe everybody should receive the wealth of society equally, rather people should be punished, banished, or rewarded based on their actions in society.

    If the poor have their basic material needs of food and shelter met, the existence of a big gap between the poorest and richest is not a moral problem. Once basic needs are met, any difference in what wealth individuals have or don’t have is based on their individual contributions to society, and how others voluntarily exchange their labor and capital with others for their labor and capital.

    There are economic factors that drive the largest wedge between the wealthy and poor. That factor is government getting in the middle and controlling who can and can’t freely exchange capital and labor. Compare income inequality from the 50’s to today. Compare government regulations from the 50’s to today. More government = more wealth inequality. Uber and Airbnb are prime examples of the problem with government. The government is trying to stop poor individuals from competing with big rich companies. You own a car or house and the government says that you can’t use your property to earn more wealth. The government is causing disproportionate wealth inequality. What business is it of the government if you let somebody use your spare bedroom for a night in exchange for $40. You and the person in your spare bedroom are voluntarily exchanging capital for use of private property, thus voluntarily transferring wealth. The government is saying that you must transfer that wealth to a big corporation that runs a hotel and cannot choose voluntarily to do so without government permission.

    The inequality of wealth and income are only a moral failure of society if the poorest’ s basic needs aren’t met. Morally what most matters is if the rich got that way honestly. If the wealthy got rich morally and legally then the income gap is not a moral problem. Because the government is hindering individuals from using their labor and property to garner wealth and forcing others to use government approved cabs or hotels, rich cab companies, hotels, etc. are wealthy immorally.

    Consider Uber, to drive a car you own you must have a license to drive, proving you can do so safely, and insurance to protect others in case you have an accident. So all uber drivers have proven to society that they can safely drive, and can cover the expenses if they do harm to others while driving. Why should there be any restrictions for that licensed and insured vehicle and person from offering their labor and property to another in exchange for their capital? One reason, to keep the poor, poor, and the rich, rich. The ruling elite want to control who has and doesn’t have wealth.

    What is evil about a little old lady renting her spare bedroom out for a night, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about a college kid driving other students around for a fee, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about Hillary charging $200K to talk, how does that hurt the poor?

    What the left refuses to do is recognize that the actions people take determine how others in society voluntarily reward them, or how society corporately punishes them. The biggest common factor in chronic poverty, persistent violent crime, and remaining impoverished is easily recognized. It is a common action (behavior) of those who are chronically impoverished in communities plagued with violent crime. It is not politically correct to speak it out loud.

    There are noneconomic factors that make being poor permanent. These factors include not having a father in one's life, growing up with no family, no social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children. It is exceedingly rare for a married man and woman with kids to be persistently poor. A man and woman marrying may start out poor, but rarely do they as they have and raise children remain poor. Those noneconomic factors exist in greater quantity now for the same reason as the economic factors which create inequality of wealth. Too much government which rewards broken families, and punishes through wealth confiscation intact families.

    The Evil of Wealth Disparity arises from the evil of Too Much Government. Freedom and Liberty in the past proved to be a fairer distributor of society’s wealth. However Freedom and Liberty have one basic problem that scare many. Liberty is not safe! With Liberty there is no guarantee that everything will turn out safe, that everybody will get a portion of what society offers based on their actions and contributions to society. As our society has become from feminized, the weaker, fairer sex, which values security over liberty, has continually traded liberty for security. As our Forefather Ben Franklin intoned, we now have neither liberty or security. The poor are not free to use their meager capital (a used car) to work their way from poverty, and as the tens of thousands of violent crime victims in Chicago can attest, they are no longer secure. All a result of Too Much Government. As polemist Thomas Paine so aptly put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

    Wednesday, September 16, 2015

    Mass Migration is Proof that All Cultures are Not Equal.

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/16/2015

    Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Daniel Lapin in a television special, “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?” replied to that very question this way; “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

    All cultures are not equal. Some are better than others. Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West. Over 4 million have left Syria in the past 4 years. The masses leaving the Islamic Middle East and north Africa are streaming into Europe, they dash not to Hungary and former communist Eastern Europe but to the heart of Christian Europe, Germany, England, etc.

    No reason to ask why, the reason is so obvious that it need not be said. In fact because modern progressives are trying to attack the very reason that masses, when they vote with their feat, choose particular destinations: Christianity. Even if those same masses don’t accept or acknowledge that rationale, they gravitate to Christian nations.

    The main reason behind the mass migration appears to be the suppression of freedom and the violence wrought under various Islamic governments and the relative freedom afforded by formerly Christian Europe. The mass migration we are seeing is prima facie evidence of the inferiority of Islamic culture. ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, and the other Islamic movements have, and are, failing at curing the tribulations of Arabic civilization. History and current events demonstrate that when Cultures based on Islam are left to act on their own, and not restrained by some outside force, always results in a violence and tyranny, and forceful aggression against other nations.

    This proves that the idea that one culture is as good as another, that basically all cultures are equal, is just not true. Cultural relativism as an idea is demonstrably false. People are rejecting this idea propagated by overeducated idiots and voting with their feet. Whether the realize it or not, people are gravitating to countries whose cultures are rooted in Christianity.

    Western society, be it European or American no longer acknowledges the contributions of Christianity, but as I’ve stated many times before America is at its root a Christian Nation.

    For generations Cubans have been fleeing atheist Cuba. Just like the people in the tyrannical middle east, they flee cultures rooted in Christianity. People don’t build boats out of garbage and float across hurricane strewn, shark infested, waters to migrate to cultures that aren’t based on Christianity.

    Are the Middle Eastern migrants risking their lives and fortunes to get into China? India? Turkey? Russia? The answer is unequivocally NO! What they want is liberty and freedom, and that isn’t offered by all cultures.

    The sad tragic fact is that the USA is losing liberty and freedom, that loss coincides with the countries rejection of its Christian roots. Freedom and Liberty are blessings from God, and they flow directly from our Judeo-Christian traditions. That is blasphemy to most Libertarians, but without a doubt libertarianism is the political expression of the bible. The ideas of the rule of law, equality under the law, self-reliance, etc. etc. etc. are all biblical in nature.

    Christ sums up most of libertarian philosophy quite well in the closing verses of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: you are free to enter into contracts as you see fit; they are binding and fair if freely entered; individuals have the right to distribute and use their property as they see fit; others don't have the right to determine what is "fair" about how others use their property. He summed up all this in three sentences at the end of a parable with a lot less words and more eloquence than I can.

    Don’t try to say that they are going to where the wealth is, if that were the case, they’d be migrating to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait. Some of the richest countries in the world. Countries dominated by Islamic Culture. The wealth of Modern Western Civilization is a result of the people being allowed the liberty and freedom that embracing Christianity brought. If they were fleeing to where the wealth was, and wanted to continue to embrace the superiority of Islamic culture, they would be fleeing to the massively wealthy Middle East Countries that are closer than the Christian nations they seek. Clearly they are risking their lives to flee Islamic Culture and the violence and tyranny inherent in that culture.

    The mass flight of people from the culture of Islam to Western culture rooted in Christianity, lays to waste the idea that all cultures are basically equal. Otherwise they would be fleeing to China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait. Once we accept that all cultures are not equal, then the idea of defending a culture that provides more liberty, freedom, wealth, and fat not starving poor people, can be once again accepted. If you believe that America is not a “Christian Nation” and our liberty and freedom are not based in the application of Biblical principles, then you probably believe I’m a Big Fat Black Lesbian who Hates Hunting. The people of Islamic Nations are voting with their feet, their votes shout loud and clear that Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West.

    Tuesday, September 15, 2015

    America’s Not a Christian Nation - and I'm a Fat Black Lesbian Who Hates Hunting

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/15/2015 - Originally Published April 12,2009

    "America’s Not a Christian Nation - and I'm a Fat Black Lesbian Who Hates Hunting" well at least that's what Doug Giles says. It's the title of his latest commentary article at TownHall.com. The basic premise is that the USA was founded on and is a Christian nation. He's right. Some of my Libertarian brethren hate it, but this nation was founded and created based on Christian principals.

    As Doug says "Christianity wasn't the state’s declared religion, but our framers clearly stated that Christ and Moses were where this bad boy came from."

    John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a judge, diplomat, signer of the Bill of Rights, and second President of the United States.

    "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. ...
    The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

    Doug goes on quote Sam Adams, John Quincy Adams, and a bunch of other DWGs (Dead White Guys). You best go check out Wall Builders and see what the founding fathers said about liberty, our government and Christianity.

    Libertarian thought and philosophy is a direct result of the tenents of Christianity. Man is created in Gods Image, Man is given free will, God gave man a few rules to live by. Virtually all of them were about honoring him or respecting the rights of other individuals. Taken as a whole the Bible is probably the most libertarian and freedom loving book ever created.

    That said the Libertarian party is not only open to but a home for atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and all the other religions. Most people from other religions feel at home in the Libertarian party. Again this is a good thing, as the Libertarian party is a political organization not a religion, based on the solid principal that a person is sovereign over him/herself not the government. The basic and most fundamental tenents of libertarianism is voluntary interactions between sovereign people, and opposition to using force against others. If you've read the Gospels and teaching of Paul you'd find that is one of the underlying themes of the new testament.

    OK, look at the 10 commandments; the first five are moral rules for how you relate with God, following them will make you happier, and according to a lot of scientific study live longer, but if you don't believe in God then they are meaningless. The second five are legal rules for how to treat one another.

    They are: Don't murder, Don't commit adultery, don't steal, Don't bear false witness against your neighbor, and don't covet your neighbor’s stuff. Coveting your neighbors stuff covers acts like fraud, insider trading, dishonestly swindling your neighbor from his property, basically acting like a used car salesman turned investment banker.

    What sound Libertarian wouldn't agree that those are good rules, and sound reasons to base law on. Jesus boiled them down to the Golden rule, and freed us from the Mosaic law. So as far as Christ is concerned your free do whatever you please and enjoy your life so long as you honor god, and treat your neighbor as you would your self.

    Christ sums up most of libertarian philosophy quite well in the closing verses of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: you are free to enter into contracts as you see fit; they are binding and fair if freely entered; sovereign individuals have the right to distribute and use their property as they see fit; others don't have the right to determine what is "fair" about how others use their property. He sums up all this in three sentences at the end of a parable with a lot less words and more eloquence than I can.

    He also calls on us to take care of the down trodden and orphans. He doesn't call on the government to do so. We the people of this country do that, and do it better than the government. As private citizens we followed Christ's principals even if we didn't claim them as His, after the Tidal Wave a few years ago, private citizens sent more aid than most government's of the world. After Katrina private citizens went and helped and built and did more than the government, only stopped by FEMA and the like. It was the churches of this country, and christian business like Walmart, that dropped what they were doing and went to help, not the Libertarian party, not the government, but people and their churches. Christian churches, how many mosque's sent people, supplies, money to New Orleans to help those they didn't know? Answer: zero. The christian people of the USA following the Golden Rule do a far better job of taking care of the poor then the government ever has.

    You may try and make excuses base on psudo-psycho-social-bullshit and the like, but the ideas that all men are equal (made in God's image), that we are to be free and sovereign are clearly biblical. You don't have to believe in the Christian God, or any god, but not recognizing that liberty and freedom and the basic tenents of the Libertarian party are rooted in Christianity is just lying to yourself.

    Tuesday, September 8, 2015

    What Rule of Law?

    Tom Rhodes, 9/8/2015

    Today we are seeing the ruling elite imprison those who don’t follow there dictates regardless of the law. In fact obeying the law, if our ruling masters don’t like the law, can and will land you in prison indefinitely. Kim Davis sits in jail for following the law. Even some libertarians say she should be in jail for not following the law. The question is what law is she violating? The fact is the contempt of court finding, but that finding is based on the court enforcing the will of ruling elites without any law to support the ruling.

    The court is saying, “You will do as we dictate regardless of the law.” Kim Davis chose to obey Kentucky’s marriage law and state Constitution which requires marriage be between two people of different sexes. The SCOTUS cannot make law, that is the exclusive authority of the Legislature. Read the constitution if you don’t believe me. The SCOTUS can declare a law null and void because it violates the constitution, but it has no power or authority to dictate laws. It’s called separation of powers.

    Here’s the real problem. Others whom the ruling elite favor, can refuse to enforce laws and dictates of federal courts at will and suffer no consequences, while those who enforce laws the ruling oligarchy wish didn’t exist are jailed. Here are some recent examples:

  • Chief Cathy Lanier, of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, is refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” although the law is clear that there is no requirement to do so. Despite a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits. Refusing a federal judge is not landing Cathy Lanier in jail for contempt.

  • Lesbian Texas judge, Tonya Parker, in 2012, refused to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples until same-sex marriage was legalized. Unlike Kim Davis, she was clearly violating the law, not only wasn’t she jailed for violating the law, she wasn’t even disciplined.

  • County sheriffs throughout California are similarly denying concealed weapons permits to applicants, despite last November’s Ninth Circuit ruling stating the the sheriffs were violating the law. People have died, unable to obtain permits to legally carry a weapon for self-defense, yet none of those sheriffs have been sent to jail.

  • In 2004 in clear violation of California State Law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004. Newsom was never sent to jail.

  • In 2007 Newsom made San Francisco a sanctuary city, in clear violation of federal law. Nothing happened to him. The city’s sanctuary status resulted in the death of Kate Steinle in July, who was shot by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

    Davis is in violation of no law, and is attempting to enforce Kentucky law. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to regulate marriage, that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the states. The sad fact is Kim Davis was singled out and punished disproportionately compared to other public officials who didn’t comply with other controversial laws.

    If we were a country ruled by law, not dictates of those in power, then Cathy Lanier, Tonya Parker, Gavin Newsom, and multiple California sheriffs would be in jail alongside Kim Davis. Obviously if your position is not to enforce laws leftists don’t like, or violate laws leftists don’t like, then there are no consequences, but not do as leftists dictate, regardless of the law and you will be imprisoned. That is not rule of law, but rule by the elite’s whims, and no different than any other feudal system.

    The problem is that the it is the U.S. Supreme Court who violated the Constitution by legislating, a power explicitly restricted to only Congress. Congress had overwhelmingly approved a law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, all the SCOTUS can do is declare that law unconstitutional, it cannot create offsetting legislation.

    In the state of Kentucky, it’s constitution is unambiguous saying, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” There is no provision in the US Constitution or laws that grant the U.S. Supreme Court the authority to overturn the Constitution of any state.

    Clearly there is no law that Kim Davis is in violation. She did defy a court order, but that court order has no basis in law and is therefore illegal. A court can’t order an elected official to murder a citizen, or otherwise violate the law. Such orders are invalid. A court order in direct conflict with the state of Kentucky’s Constitution is by default invalid. Obviously the Rule of Law is DEAD in the USA, and we are now ruled by the dictates of the elite. More of a Neo-Feudal society than a republic. The elected representatives of Kentucky have made the matter clear with 75% declaring that in Kentucky marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman. America used to be distinct among the countries in that it was a nation under the rule of law, not a nation under the rule of men. There’s a big difference.

    Sarah Warbelow, the legal direction of Human Rights Campaign, the USA’s largest LBGT activist lobby has said, “This situation absolutely didn’t have to happen, if only Kim Davis followed the law.” Exactly what law can she or anybody else cite that Kim Davis isn’t following?

    She can site the SCOTUS ruling but the SCOTUS does not have the power to create law, the U.S. Constitution is unambiguously clear about lawmaking: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” That means SCOTUS cannot make law, PERIOD! So any law dictated by the SCOTUS is null and void and not a law.

    We used to be a nation ruled by law, now we are a nation rule by some ruling oligarchy, who can pick and choose who must follow the law and who can do whatever they want without being held accountable. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s a safe bet it is a duck. For the USA if it acts like a feudal oligarchy, sounds like a feudal oligarchy, and looks like a feudal oligarchy, then it’s a safe bet that the USA is now a feudal oligarchy, not a republic based on the rule of law.
  • Wednesday, August 12, 2015

    Tolerance Of Totalitarianism Is Not A Virtue, It Is Surrender

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2015

    Fear of being called, racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, or whatever ugly term progressives use to disqualify those who dare utter ideas they disapprove, has silenced many in America. Progressives also routinely dehumanize any who don’t follow their beliefs. They are effectively eliminating freedom of speech. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) have created and used effective tactics to silence those who don’t accept their ideas. This tactic has proved effective. Time to go on the offensive and use their tactic against them. This is proving effective in many social media discussions.

    First let’s identify the issue, I’ll use some stuff Dr. Walter Williams wrote in a recent article on “micro-aggression,” that correctly identifies and labels the actions of SJW’s

    From the Nazis to the Stalinists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, and why is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control and confiscation. Free speech is a basic tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, proselytization. Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.
    Western values of liberty are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality before the law with entitlement. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist organization or rogue nation. Leftist ideas are a cancer on our society. Ironically, we not only are timid in response, but also nourish those ideas with our tax dollars and charitable donations."
    ~ Dr. Walter Williams

    Compromise, rationality, and working with SJW’s doesn’t work. Facts and figures are useless, they dismiss any data that doesn’t support their position, lie, and attack the person who brings it up with dehumanizing labels. These evil bastards go so far as to destroy any who don’t toe the progressive line. Look at Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who in 2014 forced to resign. Although none of his actions at the company were ever anti-gay, and he never talked about his personal beliefs at Mozilla. The fact that years earlier he donated money to a political cause to protect marriage, he was forced to resign.

    When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal. "I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one."

    SJW’s are tyrannical thought police, seek to punish and crush any who dare not believe what they dictate. Progressive SJW professors, physically attack students who express ideas they don’t like, and then claim to be victim because those ideas hurt their psyche.

    SJW’s have in essence created the new battle lines and rules. Time to use their tactics against them. They should be given no quarter and crushed as ruthlessly as they have tried to crush others. Refer to them a the totalitarian thought police, fascist nazi’s etc. whenever and wherever they try to silence ideas they don’t like. Don’t try rational discourse, it won’t work. Attack. They are totalitarian, anti-freedom hate mongers. Taking the game to them is proving to work where the people have the guts to stand up to them. Look up Gamergate and Rabid Puppies. SJW’s are a cancer that must be eliminated.

    For years the Hugo Awards (Science Fiction writing award) have been silenced by SJW’s. They disqualified any writer whose ideas aren’t politically correct, saying “That there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X.” X being racist, sexist, etc. The popularity of Science Fiction books has been dropping for the past couple decades. The great works of Heinlein, Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Lovecraft, would not get past most Politically Correct editors today and even get published. There is a de facto exclusion from the sci-fi community of noted authors: David Drake, David Weber, L.E Modesitt Jr, Kevn J. Anderson, Eric Flint. Even Orson Scott Card — the creator of the world-famous Ender’s Game, which was recently adapted into a successful movie. Despite his phenomenal success, Scott Card has been ostracized by sci-fi’s inner circle thanks to his opposition to gay marriage.

    SJW’s changed the Hugo awards to choosing based on the beliefs of the author not the quality of the work. A rebellion started with the Hugo Awards, and playing by the rules a group of people managed to nominate a slate of works that are not politically correct, using the tactics of SJW’s. The results were entire categories of Hugo awards are not going to go to the politically correct. Read about it here.

    The article notes, “It seems that fandoms and online communities everywhere are waking up to the new menace of political intolerance, authoritarianism, ostracism and so-called ‘social justice.’ … Ordinary people are utterly fed up with the dominance of cliquish culture warriors whose bizarre opinions do not reflect those of the majority. They are fed up with being told what to do, what to believe, and whom to exclude. Wherever and whoever they may be, crusaders for political and social conformity are in the midst of a storm. And that storm is only just beginning.”

    The Geeks, Comic Book Fans, Gamers, are showing the way to defeat SJW’s. Never accept their assertions, attack and demonize SJW’s for the totalitarian thought police that they are. This will work in politics as well. Trump is showing the tactic works. Unlike the MSM, on the internet and in today’s world, we have access to the same shaming, social exclusion, finger waging, to create a backlash against the authoritarian left.

    Quit arguing with the totalitarian thought police, call them out for being anti-liberty, label them as the totalitarian elitists they are. Be defiant, bold, and challenging for their clear hatred of liberty. They are totalitarian. SJW’s be they feminists, gay rights activists, or race mongers don’t care about tolerance, diversity, or inclusion, those are just tools to get what they want, power. Trying to coexist with them, or tolerate their presence is not going to work, they are totalitarians. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender.

    Friday, August 7, 2015

    Trump Hit a Home Run

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/7/2015

    Damn It! Trump is the quintessential crony capitalist, and I was hoping he screw up so bad in the first GOP debate he’d be gone. Instead he hit a home run and the SJW press doesn’t know how to react. Trump expressed the unstated opinion of the great majority of Americans. When the liberal progressive feminist tried to label Trump sexist, misogynist, or whatever other label they seek to use to discredit, disqualify, or distract those who don’t follow the feminist SJW doctrine, instead of folding and humbly apologizing for his fopaux he owned it. His reply hit it right out of the park. Here’s the exchange between Fox News Channel’s, Megyn Kelly, and GOP Candidate Donald Trump.

    KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However that is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your twitter account--

    TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

    KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

    TRUMP: I'm sure it was.

    KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contesttent that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.

    Does that sound like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?

    And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

    TRUMP: The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don't win anymore. We lose to China, we lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. Frankly what I say and oftentiTmes it's fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you although I could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn't do that. But you know what? We, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now.

    Not even any of the Libertarian Candidates are currently willing to stand up to feminist SJWs. Trump standing up to the feminist SJW, Megyn Kelly, in clear and certain terms, will resonate with a huge part of the American people and although the press will pillory him for his response the average joe is cheering. Every SJW (that’s Social Justice Whiner), and self-appointed thought cop is part of the problem. Trumps example is fantastic. It’s time to quit taking PC crap and make sure every time the some SJW tries to play thought cop, it gets crammed right down their throat.

    Trump boldly declaring that "The big problem this country has is being politically correct," targets the biggest problem we have that gets in the way of discussing any of the actual issues that matter honestly. It was good to seek Kelly have enough balls to ask a tough feminist question, better yet it was good to see a candidate, unapologetically stand up to the feminist PC thought cops trying discredit, disqualify, and distract based on irrelevant garbage and hurt feelings. This Orwellian crap of not being able to state an observable truth, if that fact isn’t politically correct, has got to end. Instead of Trump looking like the buffoon the press and political establishment want us to think, he’s looking like a serious person, who want to address serious problems, and isn’t willing to take PC bullshit get in the way of dealing with serious issues.

    As a libertarian, many of Trumps positions bother me. As a Libertarian, I plan on voting for the LP nominee, not the GOP or Democrat regardless of who they choose to run. I thought the SJWs would beat Trump down and he’d soon be gone by the end of the summer. Instead he again voiced and identified the heart of an issue that the masses recognize and the ruling elite don’t want to discuss. He keeps doing this and could end up a serious candidate. Washington has created an US vs THEM problem. The ruling elite vs. the masses. Most people today see the government as a burden, trying to control us and ignoring the problems of the people. Trumps actions and words are firmly putting him in the camp of the people not the ruling elite.

    This is fun to watch, but before the end of the year, I expect the GOP and the Democrats to pull out some sneaky crap to make Trump go away. They cannot afford to have to deal with real issues that Trump is bringing to the forefront. Issues that both parties don’t want the people talking about or worse yet, being forced to make statements about. Look at what they did to Ron Paul, who was an insider and accepted member of the ruling elite; Trump as a true outsider is doomed.

    Tuesday, August 4, 2015

    Democrats Can't Tell Themselves Apart from Socialists

    by Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2015

    Democrat Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked a simple direct question. What’s the difference between the Democrat and Socialist Parties? She changed the subject. Went so far as to tell the interviewer what she thought the question should be. This is such a simple strait forward question of basic political philosophy it should be easy for any Democrat to answer. When the chairman of the Democrat Party can’t answer it we should all have questions.

    The answer to the question “What’s the difference between Democrats and Socialists?” was answered 60 years ago by famous author and politician Upton Sinclair. After switching from the Socialist to Democrat party and asked about why he replied, "The American people will take socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it... Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000." He showed in 1951 that if you push socialist ideas and call yourself a Democrat, you can win Democrat votes. Democrats believe in socialism, but just don’t want to be called socialists.

    Proof can be heard from current Democrat and President B.H.Obama’s own words:

  • “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”

  • “Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”

  • “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

  • “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

  • “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

  • “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

  • “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution…”

  • “…We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

  • “Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

  • “The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity.”

  • “Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union”

    And let’s not forget:

  • “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

    The truth Democrat Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, couldn’t utter was there is no difference between Democrats and Socialists.
  • Monday, August 3, 2015

    Befuddling Question About Institutional Racism

    By Tom Rhodes, 8/3/2015

    Politically Incorrect observation/question that progressives won’t respond to honestly. In fact merely asking or noting the fact is enough to label you as racist.

    I’m befuddled on “institutional racism?” Our justice system is being labeled as “Institutionally racist” because one-third of the men in prison are black, despite the fact that blacks are only one-eighth of the population. If that is true then does the fact that more than a third (37%) of all aborted babies are black, despite the fact that blacks are only one-eighth of the population, prove that abortion is “institutionally racist.” The preponderance of Planned Parenthood offices being in predominantly poor black neighborhoods, coupled with the clearly expressed views of Planned Parenthood’s founder M. Sanger, would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Planned Parenthood is racist, and it’s goal is to eliminate black babies.

    Why do progressives who support Planned Parenthood want to kill black babies?

    Thursday, July 30, 2015

    Why are So Many Libertarians Pro-Murder?

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/30/2015

    My dictionary defines murder as: killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance. That means by definition to purposefully and with forethought, to kill a human being who has committed no act of aggression against another, is murder.

    The idea that if a human being is less developed than other human she may be killed just because her mere existence is unwanted by her mother is quite simply an abominable immoral murder. Whether it’s legal or called “abortion” is irrelevant, it is murder. If you support the right of women to murder innocent people who have instigated no act of aggression against anybody, yet condemn men who murder innocent marines working in recruiting stations, you are a hypocrite and of low moral character.

    Planned Parenthood just got caught selling body parts from innocent murdered babies. “The grisly business of the abortion monolith and its blithe nonchalance in the face of the gruesome reality have been Planned Parenthood’s stock-and-trade since the time of its notorious founder, Margaret Sanger.”

    I have read and paraphrased some valid questions from a lot of different sources that the pro-innocent-baby-murder crowd don’t want to answer:

  • If the unborn babies are not human, then why is there a market for their body parts for human scientific research?
  • If the “POC” (Product of Conception) is just a “blob of tissue” why would anyone want the heart or lungs?
  • Other than age (stage of development), why is a mere “blob of tissue” with human DNA, human heart, and human lungs, not a human?
  • If you it’s OK to sell human parts of the very young people for profit, why not sell older more developed body parts like maybe your working spare kidney?
  • Who’s to say an assisted-care facility shouldn’t sell parts from deceased patients for profit?
  • Who’s to say an assisted-care facility shouldn’t accelerate their patients death to facilitate organ harvest for profit?
  • How is murdering the poor and homeless to harvest their organs any more egregious?

    Another lexicon for consideration; the word fetus has Latin roots, it comes from the word foedus, which means unborn baby. A fetus by definition is simply an unborn baby, if that fetus has human DNA it is a human baby at an early stage of life. It is not dead, it is not something other than human, it is as the Latin root word definitions clearly states, a baby. Calling the baby a fetus in an attempt to dehumanize the baby that a mother murders, doesn’t change the cold hard facts, abortion is murder of an person who has committed no crime nor any act of aggression against anybody. Being legal doesn’t make it any less murder.

    “Abortion is a crime that kills not only the child but the consciences of all involved.” ~ Mother Teresa

    It is not scientifically arguable that abortion is not killing a human. The only argument is at what stage of human development do we grant that human the right to life. If society can arbitrarily choose to make the right to life based on age (stage of development), then the right to life is not a right, but a privilege. A privilege granted only to those whom others have deemed worthy of existence. If life is a mere privilege, how can anything else be a right?

    How can a rational person take the official Libertarian position seriously? The official Libertarian position on murdering a member of your baby is “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Using that logic it should be up to each person to decide if murdering some family member who is inconvenient or unwanted and the government should not create any laws against it, leaving it up to the family embers conscientious consideration. Using that logic the LP Platform supports Honor Killing of family members.

    Why doesn’t the LP Platform read: “Recognizing that Avunculicide, Familicide, Feticide (or foeticide), Filicide, Fratricide, Geronticide, Honour killing, Infanticide, Mariticide, Matricide, Neonaticide, Nepoticide, Parricide, Patricide, Prolicide, Senicide, Sororicide, and Uxoricide, are sensitive issues and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”???

    The reason is clear, the first and primary right every person has, that was the foundation and reason we created our government and the fundamentally the root of everything we think of as a right is the right to life. Abortion is the idea that a mother knows better than her unborn baby whether that baby is worthy of existing. That her superior knowledge of how that baby existing will affect her life and the probably quality of that baby’s life is enough to determine if that baby has the right to life. Once you accept abortion, you accept the idea that those with power and authority have the right to determine if those without power and authority can even exist. If you accept that a person with power and authority can murder those under her authority without recourse, how can you logically accept any limits on that power and authority. Clearly not a libertarian idea. Why do so many libertarians accept the idea that those with legal power and authority have the right to control other’s lives, even if that other is allowed to live that life?
  • Tuesday, July 14, 2015

    US Military Surrenders in LBGT Culture War

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/14/2015

    Monday the Pentagon announced defeat and total surrender in the LBGT culture war. It will allow transgender members of the military to serve openly starting next year. At first I was thinking WTF. When Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said he had directed the armed forces to devise new rules over the next six months that would allow transgender troops to serve, I thought OMG the entire military has gone batshit crazy.

    Then it became clear to me, what a sneaky way to fix the problem on not enough women in the Seals, Marines, Army Rangers, etc. All they have to do to fix that problem is get enough manly men to claim to be women. If Bruce Jenner can be Katlin and we must now refer to him as a woman then so can any Navy Seal. Presto-change-o the not enough women in certain parts of the military is fixed. You can have a big strapping woman who can carry a 80 pound ruck with a log on her shoulder after 20 hours of hard labor during Hell Week, just as effectively as any man. Just because “Samantha” (formerly Sam Smith) has balls, a schlong, and no tits, being 6’2” tall, weighing 200 pounds, and bench pressing 300 pounds, and is just a girl who thinks a 10K run is a warm up, that doesn’t make her any less a woman.

    Absolutely brilliant on the part of Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter. If we must accept men who claim to be women as women, then the physical requirements of certain military units do not have to be compromised to accommodate anybody, just let some men claim to be women, hell just classify 40% the current men in the seals as women, they don’t even have to know about it and the problem is solved. Sargent Alvin York now has the box next to Female under Sex: checked, and he’s labeled like the old joke goes, “A Lesbian Woman Trapped in a Man’s Body.” If the actual biology of a person doesn’t define their sex, rather how they, (or the powers that be) “feel” about their sex determines their legal sex, then the problem of enough women passing PT can be made to disappear with paperwork instead of lowering standards.

    It looks like not all of the unintended consequences to the freakshow that is the current LBGT culture war will not be bad for the military. Those military types are sneaky bastards.

    Friday, July 10, 2015

    Playing the Trump Card is Entertaining

    by Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2015

    The silly season of presidential politics is heating up. For political junkies this is entertainment like we haven’t seen in decades. The early leader in GOP polls almost never wins the GOP nomination. Trump right now is destroying the GOP competition, and he’s a definite RINO. The reason he’s ahead is he listened to the people on a very important issue. The ruling oligarchy of Republicans and Democrats, doesn’t want to touch immigration and definitely doesn’t want to do what 2/3rds of America wants; close the border. This may be the single most important issue to the American people that the oligarchs don’t want us to talk about much less do anything about. The establishment ruling elite claim Americans want a path to citizenship for criminal foreign nationals, but the polls say otherwise.

    Americans know there are record numbers of people without jobs, they know more criminal foreign nationals in the country depresses labor markets keeping their wages down. They know supply and demand laws work, so if there are a lot more people available to do unskilled or low skilled labor then the wages for that labor will be lower, and will depress the entire labor market. They aren’t anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrants who cross our border through criminal means. They know that criminal foreign nationals, who don’t respect our immigration laws, probably won’t respect our other laws, much less our respect our traditions and culture. There are not jobs Americans won’t do, there are jobs Americans won’t do if they pay less than they can receive for sitting on their ass.

    Take home pay for a person working minimum wage is $975 per month after taxes. Because employers are now forced to purchase health insurance for everybody working full time, an employer can hire two people to work 29.9 hours per week cheaper than he can hire one person to work 40 hours per week. Because 59.8 hours of unskilled labor working part time is cheaper than 40 hours of unskilled labor full time, there are no minimum wage job is more than 29.9 hours per week. The reality is a business saves even more because payroll is simpler, accounting is simpler, no insurance paperwork, so the need for a admin person to do all the paperwork is not needed. Some of the unintended consequences of Obamacare and US labor laws.

    This means that in reality if your are following the law, a minimum wage worker takes home $850 per month or less. Combine all the benefits available and welfare provides significantly more than $850/month. So American workers are not willing to take jobs that pay less than they receive for not working. Criminal foreign nationals are willing to live 10 people to a crappy 2 room apartment, work for cash under the table, and because they are criminals willing to work under conditions that are not legal. Why would a business pay more for unskilled labor, when even if caught the penalties are less than the amount they save from having to compete for legal labor.

    It’s actually worse than that. The fact is at $100 per day for a 10hr day for a day laborer, and you don’t hire the same day laborer more than 5 days, and there are no taxes, just a day labor expense. Give the guy a $100 bill at the end of the day and you’re done, don’t even need to file a 1099, huge amounts of admin paperwork avoided. If they change their name and give you a different SSN you can do that week after week. So an illegal day laborer can take home $2000 per month, the business owner not break any law and it’s cheaper than the business hiring a full time employee and working him 50 hours at minimum wage paying time-and-a-half for OT, the taxes, insurance, and all the other stuff the law requires.

    Trump knows this, he’s hired criminal foreign nationals in his past for just that reason. He knows the people are fed up with having to compete with criminals for jobs. The GOP won’t do anything because their donors benefit from cheap criminal labor and low penalties if caught. The Democrats won’t do anything because criminal foreign nationals in exchange for welfare will illegally vote, and vote Democrat, so that they can keep gaming the system. They are criminals, if ignoring immigrations laws is not an issue, so is ignoring voter laws and welfare laws, housing laws, and labor laws.

    Trump boldly, unapologetically, directly, and fearlessly, has stood up and said, “Here is where I stand, like it and vote for me, don’t like it don’t vote for me, but this is my stand and what I’ll do.” No political weasel words, but a solid position that just happens to be in agreement with 2/3’s the population. This scares the shit out of the Republicans and Democrats, who want some issues to be ignored so that they can continue to kick the can and not actually do something about the mass invasion of criminal foreign nationals. Americans are finding a man willing to stand on principle refreshing and more trustworthy. Even if they don’t agree with all his positions, many feel that a man with bold, honest, unapologetic, political positions, is worth voting for. I’m pretty sure the bad rug he wears on his head will cost him the election. Good hair wins the female vote, that’s the big reason McCain lost to Obama. Don’t believe me? Look at the hair/looks of presidents since TV got big. Hair and looks won every time.

    If Trump can stay on message, and force the others to address the invasion of criminal foreign nationals, and make the other candidates look like weasely political hacks and himself look like a principled man of action, he can win the GOP nomination. Because Trump speaks with a passion, lucidity and a frankness that none of the establishment politicians of the GOP dare articulate, on a subject they do not want there to be real public debate, the Republican mega-donors are scared he might get into the debates. To add to the fat-cats fears, Trump has the money to counter their money. Trump in the debates will be bad for established statist candidates and their sponsors. He will bring issues to the table they don’t want the public addressing, this will be bad for them.

    The Democrats are stupid and blind, they believe their own lies and think the public accept the politically correct position, and want to grant amnesty to criminal foreign nationals. So they are trying to group all Republicans as having Trump’s views. This will be a big mistake, as they will be forced to take a vocal stand on immigration. Because a huge part of the population treats immigration as a jobs issue, with record number of people without jobs, and a huge number blaming the lack of jobs on a glut of criminal foreign nationals willing to work for less than legal wages, the Democrat position is the wrong side of the voters’ position. Trump having Democrat positions on other topics, and a clear, firm, bold stance on immigration means he’ll get a large number of democrat votes other GOP members can’t and could win the election.

    Although I don’t like is statist positions on a huge number of issues, having a person who know what it takes to succeed and get things done, having learned from both his failures (bankruptcy) and success, now a Billionaire again, might not be bad. He’s clearly not the establishment candidate. It will be fun to watch how the establishment ruling elite destroy him. He will not be allowed to win any more than Ron Paul was allowed to win. The books will be cooked, the media bought off, and lies will be told. But the ruling elite are not going to let him get far.

    You got to like a guy, who tells Univision you’re in breach of our contract, you don’t honor our contract and don’t broadcast the Miss USA pageant as agreed, and I’ll sue you for $500Million. The contract doesn’t have a provision to exit if you don’t like what the other guy says. Support for the Rule of Law, a rarity in politics today. Trump is doubling down, not retracting his opinion, and holding Univision to the terms of their Contract. A positive principled position in support of the rule of law, something a libertarian can appreciate. I can’t vote for Trump based on his positions on healthcare, abortion, guns, and, his financial support for Democrats. But I am going to enjoy the chaos he will bring to the elections.

    Thursday, July 9, 2015

    USA Following the Path of Mexico and Greece

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2015

    Fundamentally we should ask ourselves, why the people of oil and material rich Mexico, abandon their homeland, break international law, and migrate to the USA? We should also ask why the people of Greece voted to violate international law and renege on the debt they choose procure? Why did the USA prosper while other countries with equal resources stagnate or decay? The fundamental reason the USA prospered is the same fundamental reason it now wanes. The bedrock principle that was established and regarded as sacred, a principle that is becoming more and more meaningless in the USA, is “The Rule of Law.”

    Mexico is a naturally rich country; blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens vote with their feet, reject their homeland, break the law, and illegally come to the USA. The reason is because Mexico is a mess. The police expect bribes, property rights are only for the rich and well connected, and if you can’t afford to pay the kickbacks, the government doesn’t work. The sad fact is the people of Mexico leave their homeland and come to the USA, while the people of the USA don’t migrate to Mexico is because, in Mexico, the people cannot expect clean water, adequate public safety, reliable power, nor upward mobility. Those things don’t exist in Mexico because neither the government nor the culture have a respect nor expectation of the “Rule of Law.”

    Like Mexico, Greece has institutionalized corruption. There is a distinct lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. It doesn’t matter how many euros the EU loans Greece. If Greeks continue to dodge taxes, see corruption as a business model, the EU loans are throwing good money after bad. The Greeks are now in a position that they can never repay, ever! Privation for generations is the only way they can repay the EU. The Germans are demanding just that, repayment at the expense of the standard of living for an entire nation. The Germans expect generations of Greeks to work to repay their corrupt government’s borrowing. Money borrowed to redistribute to the Greeks and pad fat pensions. As long as the rule of law is not the rule of Greece it will continue to be a disaster. In a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. All laws seem negotiable in Athens in a way not true of other nations.

    The fact is that our nation is in decline, No nation can expect to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. When an entire city, can say, “Screw the law”, and declare that their city is a "sanctuary" where the Federal Law will be ignored, such as San Francisco’s defiance of immigration laws, then why can’t cities in Utah or Alabama declare that gay marriage laws were null and void. If San Francisco can defy immigration laws, why can’t Tampa defy import laws and declare its port to be duty free, inspection free, and allow any car to be imported? Imagine ignoring federal laws, and buying a car like the Chevy Beat that has a list price of $6634, gets over 60mpg, but not allowed in the US. Maybe ignoring federal laws is not such a bad idea.

    The idea that foreign nationals in the USA without proper visas, green cards, etc. are not criminals, and that the INS should only focus on known foreign nationals who are also known felons would be like telling the police to not stop people without license plates unless they are in an accident or speeding. Should the IRS be told not to look for tax cheats unless they have been previously convicted of being a tax cheat?

    Think about it, federal government employees owe more than $3 billion in federal back taxes, why should non-government employed tax payers be treated any differently. The fact is for the average person, getting away without paying taxes is no longer considered morally wrong. Getting caught as a tax cheat is considered stupid, but not wrong. Our culture used to denigrate those who broke the law.

    The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

    1) The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.

    2) The laws are clear, publicized, stable and just, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

    3) The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient.

    4) Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and are acceptable to the communities they serve.

    Members of Congress feel no compulsion to obey the law. District of Columbia police issued 2,912 parking tickets to cars owned by members of Congress in 1998. None were paid. The financially strapped District, which actively pursues and "boots" cars belonging to ordinary citizens, does not go after members of Congress. You don’t actually have to be a member of congress, if your rich and can afford a lawyer, you can make traffic tickets, including most DUI’s disappear, no points, no record, nada. Just pay “court costs” and it goes away. Not rich enough to afford a lawyer, lose your license, maybe your job, pay just as much. It is so bad that even traffic laws are not applied equally.

    Can you honestly say that the “Rule of Law” is sacred in the USA. Do the actions of our government, or the treatment of Hillary, Sharpton, and criminal foreign nationals (AKA illegal aliens) reflect any respect for the Rule of Law. Does the supreme court saying that despite what Obamacare law clearly says, the government can change it and enforce it however it wants reflect a respect for the “Rule of Law?”

    The USA is going the way of Greece and Mexico. The people of the USA have realized that they don’t have to obey the law. There is no shame in breaking the law, only for being stupid enough to get caught and too poor to buy your way out. If immigration law doesn’t apply to people coming into the USA across our southern border; if email retention laws don’t apply to Hillary; if tax laws and penalties don’t apply to Sharpton; if former Citrus County Sherriff Dean doesn’t have to get a permit to build on his property; then why should building codes, zoning laws, tax laws, or even traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

    Wednesday, July 1, 2015

    Libertarians, Useful Idiots for the Left

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/1/2015

    Interesting blog were Sultan Knish explains why it is useless to attempt reason with leftists, and how Libertarians have become the Lefts useful idiots.


    The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.


    You can't accommodate the left on social issues. You can't accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can't do it. Period.

    The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

    The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

    It's not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.

    More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others. ...

    Being a moderate, or compromising, with the left is a losing proposition. In the case of Gay Marriage the Libertarians have been the Left's useful idiots, just as liberals have been in the past. The historical evidence for their behavior and the consequences is compelling. Read the entire blog and you'll understand how the Libertarians we been used by the Left and have given them more tools to gain power and take liberty from us all.

    Monday, June 29, 2015

    Why I’m Not a Progressive

    by Tom Rhodes, 6/29/2015

    Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.

    We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.

    In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”

    Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”

    The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.

    It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)

    The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.

    The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”

    Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:

  • If you believe that certain words are acceptable for one group of people to use but forbidden by others; you might be a progressive.
  • If you believe academic requirements to get into universities should be lower for people of one skin color than another; you might be a racist progressive.
  • If you believe physical requirements for certain jobs should be lower for one group of people than for others; you might be a sexist progressive.
  • If you believe some standards of behavior should be acceptable for one group of people and not for others; you might be a progressive.

    I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?
  • Monday, June 15, 2015

    Why do weh have Marriage Laws?

    By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015

    The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.

    Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.

    In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.

    Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.

    The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.

    Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.

    Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?

    The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage all laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.

    Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.

    All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".

    Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by the government. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.

    The hookup culture and 50+% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.

    Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, adultry, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any children. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.

    Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, who are not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce, the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.

    Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.

    Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control. Not willing to tolerate any part of society it doesn't control, government has tried, and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.

    With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.

    The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. Considering, there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility; not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights;, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle. What purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?