Understand Entropy and You Understand Me

Life the World and Everything are Defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
By Tom Rhodes, 10/18/2018

If you understand Newton’s Second law of Thermodynamics, then you need all you need to know about me, and you probably have a better more accurate understanding the principles of the Libertarian Party.

I understand and use the scientific method as the best way to understand nature and physical existence. Human history and all scientific research has proven that Newton's Second Law of thermodynamics is true in physical science and for all manmade systems both physical and relational. The second laws fundamentally states: All changes occur such that at least some energy disperses: the total concentrated or organized energy of the universe decreases, the total diffuse or disorganized energy of the universe increases. Entropy measures the amount of order in a system and the universe.

Entropy can never decrease spontaneously. Unless purposeful controlled energy, aka work, is introduced into a system, entropy increases. All systems naturally go from order to disorder. Applied to life, the fundamental concept of entropy is that if you don’t take care of something (work on it) it turns to shit (disorder).

I've seen the effect of entropy in my own life, if you look you can see how entropy affects yours. I use practical application of this scientific principle to better understand my life, and to make my life better. I work on the principle that what I don't purposefully maintain will deteriorate.

Absent purposeful repair and attention my property deteriorates. ( guns rust, tires go flat, roofs leak, yard gets overgrown, pool turns green, carbs get gummed up, hard drives get fragmented, the list is endless)

Absent purposeful exercise my body deteriorates.

Absent purposeful exercise my mind deteriorates.

Absent purposeful practice my skills deteriorate.

Absent purposeful prayer and worship my soul deteriorates.

Absent purposeful time spent with others my relationship with them deteriorates.

Absent purposeful vigilance my liberty deteriorates.

Absent purposeful participation my culture deteriorates.

The Law of Entropy, is not compromising, has no feeling, and is an absolute LAW of Nature. To accomplish anything you must add purposeful work. You cannot coast through life without purpose and accomplish much. Randomly putting energy into something without purpose will only add chaos to your life. Just "doing" something won't fix anything. A forest fire adds lots of energy to the woods, but it won't turn a single tree into table. To make a table from a tree, takes purposeful ordered energy in the form of skilled work. Absent intelligent application of controlled amounts of energy, nature will always create more disorder.

I value accomplishment, because every human being on the planet can accomplish things in proportion to the abilities they possess, if they will just do what has proven to be effective. Because not every person has the same natural abilities, and not every person will choose to purposefully put in the same work, the outcomes for everybody will be different. To be just and honorable, we must insure that opportunities must be equal, but because of entropy, we must accept the reality that outcomes will be different. The reality is entropy - the inevitable decline into disorder, built into the fabric of the universe – is the true nemesis to what I can accomplish.

Because I believe in the scientific method, I value logic over feelings and emotion. This means that I believe that libertarian political ideas are the best political expression of Christian values and where implemented has produced more order (less chaos) and more good for more people than any other political ideology every devised by man. This means that I also reject both socialism and anarchy as they have repeatedly proven to increase entropy, and bring not only chaos but privation to the people subject to their implementation. As such your assertion that is contrary to evidence will dismissed.

I like good food, strong drink, well-crafted motorcycles and guns, good writing, talented musicianship, thoughtful art, I appreciate and respect both the talent God gave and effort it takes to create those things. I appreciate beautiful women, femininity and masculinity, and know the difference.

I understand you may have a different opinions about these things, and I respect your opinions at precisely the same level of enthusiasm with which your respect mine.

Science and Math Must Not Be Debated

By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/2018

Today discussing, much less debating, observable scientific and mathematical truths is not allowed by the political left, who seek to suppress critical thinking and science, if that science exposes objective truth that doesn't support a feminist/globalist/leftist agenda.

I taught high school chemistry for a few years. Of the hundreds of students I taught some were very smart, the overwhelming majority were average, and some were .. to be blunt ... dumb. There is no teacher, who's taught for any length of time, that can't identify the very bright and dumb from the overall pack of kids they teach. They also know the grades the kids earn don't always match the intelligence of the kids they teach. They all can tell you of students who were very bright, but got bad grades because they chose not to put in any effort, and they can tell of dumb students who chose to work hard and got good grades.

Although very few, there were some kids who basic chemistry was just beyond their intellectual ability. High school chemistry isn't that hard, but it does require critical thinking and application of abstract concepts. I can say that I had far more truly intellectually limited students, who shouldn't have been in a chemistry class in the first place, who were boys than girls. Probably 4:1 dumb boys to dumb girls.

I only taught high school chemistry for 3 years so only taught about 750 different students. There were a few, very few, truly extremely intelligent students, both boys and girls, but like the truly intellectually challenged not very many. To be honest there were more boys than girls that were at the top end of the intelligence spectrum, about 3:1.

No teacher, if honest, wouldn't tell you the same thing. The overwhelming majority of students are average, but at the extreme ends of dumb and super smart there are more boys than girls. This is a repeatedly observed and measured phenomenon that is not politically correct. It can and has been mathematically modeled and compared to evolutionary differences in other animals. Male mammals have far more variability in virtually every measured aspect than females.

This is a scientific fact but even discussing mathematical models of hypothetical sex differences is forbidden if the results of such models might be interpreted as conflicting with feminist orthodoxy. As a leftist friend of mine once said "Why bother reporting scientific data, even if it is right, if the results are not politically acceptable?"

Feminists in the past couple of weeks have successfully been able to bully an obscure math journal, and have a peer reviewed paper, that is unquestionably solid in it's research methodology and application of mathematics, to be retracted after it was published because the results might be interpreted to support the idea that there are differences between men and women that might result in less women at the top of some professions.

It seems to me that an appropriate response of the bullying that resulted in obscure math journals pulling the research is to get the paper as wide a circulation as possible, and create a Streisand effect.

Here is the abstract:

An elementary mathematical theory based on "selectivity" is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.

Read the entire paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Cultural Rights

By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2018

Anglos came to North America, the Native Nations did not stop them, and the Anglos not only didn’t assimilate into native culture but forced their culture on the Native Nations. History shows the result was the virtual destruction of the native cultures that existed in North America. Human tribes have been taking over and changing or destroying other cultures through all of history. In extreme cases killing all the men and taking the women, to genetically destroy a people. For all of history, this is not the exception but the norm of human behavior.

This raises more than a few questions:

Is there a right to cultural identity?

Are other cultures obligated to accept and protect cultures other than their own?

Is the historic norm of cultures moving in and changing or destroying the native culture wrong?

Do a people have the right to protect their culture?

What should be the measure of the quality of a culture?

Are there such things as Cultural Rights?

International bodies like the UN say there are “Cultural Rights.” The Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies states, inter alia, that the assertion of cultural identity contributes to the liberation of peoples. Conversely, any form of discrimination constitutes denial or impairment. Cultural identity is a treasure which vitalizes mankind's possibilities for self-fulfillment by encouraging every people and every group to seek nurture in the past, to welcome contributions from outside compatible with their own characteristics, and so to continue the process of their own creation.

Do people have the right to enjoy their own culture and to profess and practice their own religion and to use their own language?

If an outside culture is not compatible with the local culture’s characteristics, can a nation exclude people from that outside culture? This is the policy for Japan and other mono-culture societies.

Do people have the right to invade another culture and force them to stop the practice of their own religion and to not use their own language?

Do people have the right to appropriate the values, symbols, technology and art of a culture, that isn’t their own?

If people have a right to their cultural identity then: they have the right to enjoy their own culture; to profess and practice their own religion; to use their own language; to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life, as well as in the decision-making process concerning for their culture; to establish and monitor their own associations; to establish and maintain without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group or other citizens or other States to whom they are related by national ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Do other cultures have the right to force another culture to change?

Do some tribes have the right to move to a nation, and live in that nation, and not assimilate and adopt that new nations culture?

Does a nation have the right to liming migration into its territory, so that the local culture is not over-run and destroyed?

When the leaders of a culture says, "Thanks to your democratic laws, we shall invade you; and thanks to our religious laws, we shall dominate you." Should they be taken seriously?

Can the native culture keep those invaders out?

Is “spreading democracy” forcing one culture on people of other cultures?

Do all peoples have the inherent right to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources?

If that is so, then there is a problem. Fossil fuels are still the cheapest, most reliable energy resources available. A developing nation cannot fight climate change and provide for their citizens.

Do other nations (cultures) have the right to force developing nations to use expensive “sustainable” energy?

Are cultures required to share and give other cultures their technology, art, music?

Does one culture have the right to dictate to another culture what changes it must make, or to dictate what changes that other culture cannot make?

Does one culture have the right to spread their values and beliefs to other cultures?

If that other culture refuses to accept the new values and beliefs can they use force to stop the spread of that foreign culture?

Clearly all cultures are not equal, even the UN recognizes that cultural relativism is an absurd concept. Cultures that accept human sacrifice, slavery, etc. are not acceptable to modern western civilization.

Who gets to force their culture on others, and what gives them that right?

History shows that the strongest and most willing to force their culture on another can and will do so.

Why do globalists insist they have the right to force what they believe is the best way for a society to live on others?

Is that any better or more righteous than the actions of the Anglos who destroyed the native nations of North America?

History has shown that Socialists can and do use force to make those in the territory they control accept socialist values and outlaw non-socialist institutions.

Do capitalists, or monarchist, anarchists, or despots, have the same right to use force to make those in territory they control accept their values?

How is the LBGT community forcing cultural change on American Christians, any different than Anglo settlers forcing Christianity on American Indians?

Taxation without Representation

by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/18

A primary driver of the American Revolution was, taxation without representation. Basically the idea that government can tax people and the people have no say in choosing those who create the taxes was not acceptable. Today we have that very problem and if not addressed it will lead to another revolution.

Do you believe that if your parents rack up $50,000 in credit card bills that you, now an emancipated adult living on your own, should have to repay your parents debt? After they die should the credit card company be allowed to force you to repay the dept your parents ran up even while you were long gone from your childhood home?

Even though you had no say in the debt, received little or no benefit from the debt, had no control over how big the debt got, should you have to repay that debt your parents incurred?

You having to repay the debt of your parents is essentially taxation without representation. You had no say in the borrowing but must repay the debt. Today's millennial's are having to repay baby boomer debt, that occurred long before they could vote. They are taxes massively for spending that they had no say. They didn't vote for the congressmen who borrowed and spent like drunken sailors, but do have to pay the tab.

It is immoral and unfair to burden our children with the debt we incurred. We should tax the old proportionate to the debt that was built up while they were old enough to vote. Baby boomers choose to spend money they didn't have, and now expect their grandchildren to pay it back. That is immoral and wrong.

Why should a man take a hard dangerous job to have a third of his pay go to paying off the debt his grandparents borrowed? Why not live at home in his parents or grandparents basement mooching of them, rather than work to repay their debt?

Those who kept electing politicians who, year after year, keep piling up the national debt, now in the untold trillions of dollars, not those too young to vote are responsible for that debt. Let those who borrowed the money have the burden of repaying the debt. Republicans and Democrats have done it and millennial's -- conservative or liberal -- have had nothing to do with it.

It's the parents and grand parents who have been piling debt upon the young, electing politicians who've spent and spent, refusing to cut, spending their children's birthright to get re-elected again and again, until the debt becomes so monstrous that it will crush the young, liberal or conservative, and grind them into dust.

Why should they work hard, and produce excess wealth, to repay the debt of Baby boomers?

If they become "woke" to the fact that they are paying for the excess of previous generations, what if they say, "No!, pay your own debts." and refuse to work, or refuse to pay taxes.

SocSec and Medicare for the elderly must be cut, they voted for all the spending, they should suffer the privation necessary to repay the debt they incurred. To do anything else is taxation without representation and can lead to revolution, and is immoral. The son isn't responsible for the sins of the father.

Libertarian Case For Tariffs

By Tom Rhodes, 3/16/2018

Government is a necessary evil. All the Utopian thinking will never make anarchy in any form a viable way to protect the freedom and liberty of society as a whole. Taxes to fund government are also necessary. There is no argument, tariffs are a form of taxes. When talking about taxes, we are discussing the funding government. Contemplating all revenue sources, tariffs should be rationally considered. If you want to fund government with just voluntary contributions you might as well believe leprechauns mix pixie dust with unicorn farts to turn into gold that you can find in pots at the end of a rainbow.

Governments exist for a lot of good reasons, including common defense. Governments have historically done a better job of defending borders than any other form of organization, and are certainly a damned sight better at it than international corporations. Those international corporations are government-created entities. In essence tariffs are a form of border defense. They can and do protect a nation from influence and actions of other nations in more ways than one.

Government is funded by taxes. Taxes can come from usage fees, sin taxes, tariffs, licensing fees, or direct taxation of individuals and/or corporations. Those direct taxes can come from income, or consumption tax, or taxing accumulated wealth. All taxes “manage the economy, ” tariffs are no more so than any other form of taxes.

Fundamental libertarian philosophy is that the less involved government is in an individual’s life the more liberty and freedom that individual has. Comparing different tax types, tariffs are considerably less intrusive, and cause less economic disruption, than any of the direct taxation alternatives; income taxes, consumption taxes, and wealth taxes. Publisher and author, Theodore Beale asks, “If you believe that government is a terrible way to get things done, why would you rather have it interfere on a holistic and daily basis with the economic activity of every single domestic citizen rather than on a far less frequent basis with the cross-border shipments of a limited number of foreign corporations?”

The large sway in US national politics from statist and government nanny Obama, to close down the EPA, Trump, is evidence that government is far more controllable by the people than international corporations like Google or Apple. Even knowing that the government is somewhat corrupt and clearly non efficient, having Government convey legal advantage to manufacturing companies that employ large numbers of people in a tariff system is far better than conveying advantage to Wall Street financial companies that do not in a free trade system.

The idea that all taxes are evil and society can exist without taxes and/or government is juvenile and absurd and is no more realistic than socialism with total control of the economy by some few ruling elite and just as dangerous. Government, and therefore taxes, are a necessary evil. Tariffs put more of the taxes on big companies that did the importing than direct taxation. Those big companies own the media, and buy off politicians. They have convinced so called “conservatives” and worse yet libertarians, that free-trade between nations is better, because it forces the individuals not big corporations to pay most of the taxes.

What’s better for a hundreds fat cats and international corporations on Wall Street is free-trade, that’s worse for millions of average workers in industries that were moved overseas to fatten the wallets of those same fat cats and international corporations. As a country we survived and thrived using tariffs not direct taxation on individual income until 1913. Tariffs as a system of taxation to fund that government is far less intrusive on individuals, than any direct taxation system. From a libertarian point of view, that alone makes it superior.

Before you start yelling “FREE TRADE” answer the question posed near the beginning of this article, “If you believe that government is a terrible way to get things done, why would you rather have it interfere on a holistic and daily basis with the economic activity of every single domestic citizen rather than on a far less frequent basis with the cross-border shipments of a limited number of foreign corporations?”

The Great Divide

By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2018

There is a Great Divide in America. It is the real divide in the USA, and it isn't Democrat vs Republican, nor Right vs Left. The real divide in the USA is elitist vs populist. About two centuries ago, the populists did something the elitists never dreamed could happen. They said We The People will Establish a Government and organize its powers in such form, that We the People deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. This was a slap in the face of elitists all over the world. “How dare mere peasants assume they can govern themselves!”

The elitists are those in positions of authority, and those who want and depend on experts to provide and take care of them. The populists, here in the USA, are Normal Americans who want to be self-reliant, and self-ruling, who accept government as a necessary evil instituted to protect their liberty. There are many, who do not want, and fear, liberty and freedom; hey prefer the security of having an elite dictate what they should do and take care of them (aka. Slavery). They are elitists just as much as are those in authority who want to control the masses.

We the People specifically prohibited the government from infringing on our rights, which are natural, pre-political, and exist outside of the auspice of any government. Again the idea that peasants have rights that aren't controlled and granted by the elites is a slap in the face. Elites think by virtue of their position that they know better what rights the common man should be allowed to exercise. Elitists believe in a top-down approach where professional bureaucrats rule the country and dictate cultural norms and what is acceptable dialogue and what is not, while populists believe the people are self-governing and ultimately determine the course of our politics and culture.

Elitists for over 2 centuries have been working to fundamentally transform America, to the historic norm for all of mankind, which has total elite control over the population and where dissent from their views is vilified. The gun debate is simply another battle in the all-out war elites are waging on the American people’s right to even have an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be punished for it. "How dare you bitterly cling to your religion and guns!"

Elitists want you silenced, controlled, and disarmed. They want you, the populist, the Normal American, to be disempowered; you! not the insane, not the criminals, not the terrorist, not the illegal aliens. You. Why? Because they hate you.

Elitists are appalled at the fact that in even in statist and compliant New York, where they mandated the registration of certain weapons and outlawed high capacity magazines, only a mere 10% of the people obeyed their law. Elitists hate that you won't submit. Elitists hate that you won't obey. Elitists hate that you think you should be able to share ideas and beliefs they don't approve. Elitists especially hate that you refuse to give up your only means of protecting yourself and preserving your rights. Elitists believe that they should control you, thus they should be the only ones with access to the tools of violence that can stop them, because they hate you.

Ask them, elitists openly say that you are deplorable, if you don't agree with their call to be disarmed you're a terrorist, if you express opinion they don't believe or they want silenced your insane, or too stupid, or whatever. They openly try to dehumanize those who don't accept their right to rule and not be questioned. They want you dehumanized so that you don't have rights, so that they can kill you. Look on social media, elitists openly and repeatedly call on violence and killing those who express and hold views they don't approve.

Understand that elites doesn't hate the NRA. They hate you. Elitists understand the power of the NRA is really the power of millions of populists (aka. Normal Americans), coming together to defend their right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. That’s why they fear it. That’s why they attack it. That’s why they can't abide its existence. Because of the Second Amendment, their power to limit the First is diminished. They want your voices silenced. They want the very idea of a self-governing people eliminated. Why else would they bar the use of Foundational Documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, be used in public schools.

Elitists have openly come out in favor of cowardice, they are attacking the right of self-defense. Their argument is you don't need guns to protect yourself. In fact in other countries where elites have more power, self-defense is outlawed. But Parkland demonstrates you certainly can't expect an elitist-run law enforcement agency like the Broward Sheriff’s Office to protect you, there duty is to go home safe and protect the elites from the people. They believe the life of government workers is more important than your child’s life. Those hired by the elites to enforce their will have no duty to protect you. Elitists hate that in the two most recent rulings on the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as "pre-political." That means it pre-existed the government. The damn populist Constitution and Bill of Rights, continues to thwart elitist power and control. If the elitists succeed in disarming you, where does that leave you? You can't protect yourself, and in return, no one from the government will protect you either.

On the subject of elitists vs populists, Frank Cannon, president at American Principles Project, recently wrote; “Fortunately, the American people are fully cognizant of what is taking place, which is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use, moral character and issue positions, voters applied a third lens: would their views be allowed to be articulated at all without dire consequences under a Clinton administration? “

The reality is the elitists, have had enough of uppity populists and are openly attacking individual liberty and the rights of the common man. We the People can no longer ignore the encroachment of the elites on our fundamental, pre-existing rights, and must act. Frank Cannon also noted that, “We cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers do, that we are operating in an environment of normal political give-and-take on issues. That time has passed. We are instead operating in a country now where elites demonize the populist position with such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just over political issues — it is a battle against the very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate and destroy the essence of what makes America great.”

A Rational Look at the Second Amendment

by Tom Rhodes 2/22/2018

It states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

OK, let's break that down and translate to more modern English. For a state (nation) to be secure and free such a state needs a military (at the time of the writing the Militia was the defacto military, equivalent to today’s National guard). Now the comma, in this case it's meaning is “therefore.” The concluding clause is clear and concise statement that means the same today as then. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The people being all individual citizens not the government or military, the same as every where else it is used in the Bill of Rights. What makes our Constitution and Bill of Rights unique, is it doesn't list the privileges of citizens, rather it puts restrictions on the state.

The period writings of our founding fathers at the time are consistent. The founding fathers knew that states can and do become tyrannical over time. They had just fought a revolution to throw off their former tyrannical state. So they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they knew that the state must have a military to be secure (mostly from other nations). The primary reason for it was to restrict the government and insure that people retain not just the right to be armed but the means to overthrow the government should the states actions necessitate such an action.

In summary the second amendment states that because the state must maintain a military for security of the nation, the state cannot impose impediments to the people's right to have arms to overthrow the state, should it become tyrannical.

This idea is unique among all Nations in History. The idea that the masses have the right to the means and tools of overthrowing the state, and the government cannot take away or infringe upon that right. No other nation tolerates any idea except the ruling elite have control over the use of force and the masses should be disarmed or limited in arms so that the state can always have control over the masses.

Liberty is not safe and because we have liberty, and the presumption of innocence, bad people will have access to arms. Such is the cost of liberty. The alternative is some ruling elite, not the people, get to decide who is/isn't armed and what arms they can have. When somebody says shit about what other countries do, the reply is, “This is the USA, we don't give a flying fuck at a doughnut what or how other countries make their laws. Here in the USA we've restricted those in power from infringing on the We the People's right to the tools and means to kick the ruling elite out if they get too uppity.

Why Liberty Is Dangerous

By Tom Rhodes 2/16/2018

There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!

The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.

Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.

Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are considered Fundamental Rights. These rights include:

The right to due process

The right to freedom of speech

The right to freedom of religion

The right to privacy

The right to marry

The right to interstate and intrastate travel

The right to equality

The right to assemble

And the right to keep and bear arms

Presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.

Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.

The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.

We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.

We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.

Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.

If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.