By Tom Rhodes, 12/2/2014
If the President and his Attorney General want to raise public awareness of the mistreatment of blacks in our judicial system, aren't they trivializing their own cause by using a case in which the facts don't support that objective?
There were lots of witnesses willing to testify about Brown’s death, why when there is black on black crime in black communities can’t lots of witnesses be found?
President Obama depicted Brown as a victim, by doing so isn't he attacking the grand jury and undermining the justice system, and attacking governmental credibility in general?
It appears as though the evidence in Ferguson indicates that Brown was killed as a result of his violent actions, yet there is ample evidence of the police getting away with violence against innocent blacks all across the country, from infants in play pens and sleeping little girls, to choking to death giant handcuffed men. Why isn’t Attorney General Holder, looking at the plethora of cases where police are exonerated for killing a black person under far more questionable circumstances? Why does the black community have to riot, to get the nation to examine the Thin Blue Line and the non-accountability of law enforcement?
Why were reporters eating lunch at McDonalds Arrested?
Why does the black community get all up in arms, riot, and loot their own communities, when a black criminal is shot by a white cop, they cry and demand “justice,” but they are silent and do nothing about the massive numbers of other killings and violent crime against blacks in their own communities that are known to be perpetrated by other blacks?
By depicting Brown as a victim, is Obama going against yet another promise, and rather than healing the racial tension in America exacerbating it?
How exactly is black on black looting caused by white on black racism?
In refusing to honor the grand jury's findings, is Attorney General Holder attacking the grand jury and undermining the justice system in general?
By depicting Brown as a victim, regardless of the actual physical evidence and grand jury finding, is Obama purposefully driving a wedge between the black community and law enforcement?
Were the riots in Ferguson orchestrated in advance, and the grand jury's decision as an excuse?
History has repeatedly shown that where blacks riot and loot, local businesses and the tax paying portion of the population flee that city resulting in collapse of the local economy. Will Ferguson and possibly St. Louis become the next Detroit?
The general acceptance of law enforcement failure to protect constitutional rights of blacks, and bypass constitutional protection against search, seizure, and due process against blacks has been tolerated by the government and the people. This has obviously lead the police to act as though they cannot or will not be held accountable for violating the people’s constitutional rights regardless of race. Youtube is full of video of government agents violating individual rights. Because even proving that an officer violated an individual’s rights rarely if ever results in the officer suffering more than a slap on the wrist, as the people realize that in reality they have no legal means of justice when their rights are violated by the government, will we soon see general uprising against police by more than just minorities? Will the Bundy Ranch and Ferguson become the only means of the people seeking justice before an increasingly tyrannical government that is militarizing the police to control rather than serve the people?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
RCA of Southern Border Invasion
By Tom Rhodes, 8/11/2014
RCA, common acronym for Root Cause Analysis. We are suffering an invasion of children on our southern border. This invasion is mostly young men, men just ready to enter the labor market, and not children, but even if you accept the MSM propaganda and call them children, it is still an invasion. This invasion is the cause of the President of the United States acting outside his constitutional authority and legislating from the oval office. President Obama brought on this invasion the United States by legislating through executive order in 2012, declaring that he would stop deporting young illegal immigrants. Obama sent the clear, unmistakable, unequivocal signal that children entering the nation illegally would receive amnesty. Knowing existing laws require unaccompanied minors to be sheltered, fed, educated, and taken care of, there is no doubt the driving factor in the current invasion was Obama’s declaration, that he would forsake his oath of office, and usurp unconstitutional authority, and purposely fail to execute the law of the land and protect the constitution.
For the last few DECADES the Democrats promise to cooperate and enforce the border, but routinely and steadfastly obstruct all efforts to do so. The Republicans play lip service, their actions also clearly indicate that they are unwilling to actually secure the border. The reason is clear, corporations want to depress US wages, and an oversupply of cheap labor from the third world, results in lowered labor costs. We don’t need a minimum wage law, there are not jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do for the wages corporations want to pay, and lots of third world people who will do those jobs, because even $5/hr paid in cash living as an illegal in the USA is better than anything they have in their third world country. Need to see a doctor, and all you have to do is show up at any emergency room in the USA, they cannot turn you away, and you don’t have to pay them. Compared to medicine and living standards in most of the third world, this is a good deal.
Corporate America isn’t really interested in keeping low or no skill labor cheap. They want to keep skilled labor cheap. The law of supply and demand regulates labor just as it does everything else. If there is a glut, surplus, that exceeds demand, the value of what that surplus is traded is less. So if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, the cost to hire goes up, this dramatically increases the cost of skilled labor. If there is a labor shortage, and to keep a good hard working maid or stockboy you have to pay $15/hr. Then, the semi-skilled oil/tire change tech who was making $15/hr says why should I have to have the responsibility and do the training etc, if I don’t make more than the stockboy. So the semi-skilled wages increase proportionally to $17/hr. Then the certified auto technician who was making $38K per year doing tune-ups, brakes, etc. says, why should I study hard and pay to get and keep my certifications when I can change tires and earn just about as much with less responsibility and cost, so the skilled and certified tech wages increase to over $20/hr, etc. When there is a huge surplus of unskilled labor willing to work without benefits, etc. Then corporate America can tell the maid or stockboy who asks for a raise to pound sand, they can be replaced for cheap, this is trickle up economics, and it results in depressed wages for not just minimum wage jobs, but for all jobs.
Because Obama declared that the USA would not deport children, and the USA has laws guaranteeing unaccompanied minors shelter, food, education, the parents in corrupt third world hell holes are sending their children to the USA. All parents want better for their children than they have themselves, and life as an illegal alien child in the USA is better than anything their parents can offer them in their home countries. You don’t see these law breaking criminal immigrants coming from the well to do of the third world, they are from the poor, oppressed, and hopeless.
Obama has made it clear, his idea of compromise on the border issue is for Republicans to give him whatever he wants. He has made it clear that he won’t accept any suggestions or modifications from what he wants. That is not compromise, not bipartisanship, not leadership, that’s acting like a 4 year old who doesn’t get his way, so takes the ball and goes home. The problem is it’s not even Obama’s ball, it’s congresses ball, not only has Obama thrown a childish temper tantrum, but stolen authority that isn’t his. Obama and his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority is the sole cause of the invasion from the third world across our southern border. PERIOD. I wonder what corporations are pulling Obama’s strings to not only keep US labor wages stagnant, but actually depress those wages.
RCA, common acronym for Root Cause Analysis. We are suffering an invasion of children on our southern border. This invasion is mostly young men, men just ready to enter the labor market, and not children, but even if you accept the MSM propaganda and call them children, it is still an invasion. This invasion is the cause of the President of the United States acting outside his constitutional authority and legislating from the oval office. President Obama brought on this invasion the United States by legislating through executive order in 2012, declaring that he would stop deporting young illegal immigrants. Obama sent the clear, unmistakable, unequivocal signal that children entering the nation illegally would receive amnesty. Knowing existing laws require unaccompanied minors to be sheltered, fed, educated, and taken care of, there is no doubt the driving factor in the current invasion was Obama’s declaration, that he would forsake his oath of office, and usurp unconstitutional authority, and purposely fail to execute the law of the land and protect the constitution.
For the last few DECADES the Democrats promise to cooperate and enforce the border, but routinely and steadfastly obstruct all efforts to do so. The Republicans play lip service, their actions also clearly indicate that they are unwilling to actually secure the border. The reason is clear, corporations want to depress US wages, and an oversupply of cheap labor from the third world, results in lowered labor costs. We don’t need a minimum wage law, there are not jobs Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do for the wages corporations want to pay, and lots of third world people who will do those jobs, because even $5/hr paid in cash living as an illegal in the USA is better than anything they have in their third world country. Need to see a doctor, and all you have to do is show up at any emergency room in the USA, they cannot turn you away, and you don’t have to pay them. Compared to medicine and living standards in most of the third world, this is a good deal.
Corporate America isn’t really interested in keeping low or no skill labor cheap. They want to keep skilled labor cheap. The law of supply and demand regulates labor just as it does everything else. If there is a glut, surplus, that exceeds demand, the value of what that surplus is traded is less. So if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, the cost to hire goes up, this dramatically increases the cost of skilled labor. If there is a labor shortage, and to keep a good hard working maid or stockboy you have to pay $15/hr. Then, the semi-skilled oil/tire change tech who was making $15/hr says why should I have to have the responsibility and do the training etc, if I don’t make more than the stockboy. So the semi-skilled wages increase proportionally to $17/hr. Then the certified auto technician who was making $38K per year doing tune-ups, brakes, etc. says, why should I study hard and pay to get and keep my certifications when I can change tires and earn just about as much with less responsibility and cost, so the skilled and certified tech wages increase to over $20/hr, etc. When there is a huge surplus of unskilled labor willing to work without benefits, etc. Then corporate America can tell the maid or stockboy who asks for a raise to pound sand, they can be replaced for cheap, this is trickle up economics, and it results in depressed wages for not just minimum wage jobs, but for all jobs.
Because Obama declared that the USA would not deport children, and the USA has laws guaranteeing unaccompanied minors shelter, food, education, the parents in corrupt third world hell holes are sending their children to the USA. All parents want better for their children than they have themselves, and life as an illegal alien child in the USA is better than anything their parents can offer them in their home countries. You don’t see these law breaking criminal immigrants coming from the well to do of the third world, they are from the poor, oppressed, and hopeless.
Obama has made it clear, his idea of compromise on the border issue is for Republicans to give him whatever he wants. He has made it clear that he won’t accept any suggestions or modifications from what he wants. That is not compromise, not bipartisanship, not leadership, that’s acting like a 4 year old who doesn’t get his way, so takes the ball and goes home. The problem is it’s not even Obama’s ball, it’s congresses ball, not only has Obama thrown a childish temper tantrum, but stolen authority that isn’t his. Obama and his unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority is the sole cause of the invasion from the third world across our southern border. PERIOD. I wonder what corporations are pulling Obama’s strings to not only keep US labor wages stagnant, but actually depress those wages.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Impeach Obama – NOT!
By Tom Rhodes, 8/5/2014
The whole Impeach Obama drive is drivel and a waste of time and effort from productive activities. First to impeach Obama you will have to prove to 2/3rds of the Democrat majority senate he’s guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At least according to the constitution. Obama is daring congress to try. The reason he is playing that gambit is not just because the senate is controlled by Democrats, but he has clearly Obama has not committed an impeachable offense.
What he has done is violate his oath of office, he is changing laws, and not enforcing laws, or selectively enforcing other laws at his whim. Currently there are no laws nor constitutional method for congress to hold the president accountable, if the president says to congress screw you and acts like a dictator. All congress can do directly is withhold money. That’s it.
Creating and changing laws is a power reserved to Congress, Obama has routinely changed law to suit his whims. Obama’s executive orders and actions may be unconstitutional but they are not illegal. Because Obamas actions are a mere violation of his Oath but not illegal they are not a high crimes or misdemeanors, nor are such actions treasonous, nor can his actions be proven to be bribery. Hence there is no constitutional grounds to impeach him.
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass any law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not illegal for congress to pass unconstitutional laws. Congress as a whole, nor congressmen individually cannot be charged with treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor for creating unconstitutional laws. The same principle applies to the president, unconstitutional actions by the president are not constitutional grounds for impeachment. Oops that is a giant whole in our constitution. Our forefathers never considered an elected official so devoid of character that he would willfully and purposefully violate his Oath of Office, and abuse his power as Obama has.
There is no constitutional means of dealing with elected officials who violate their oath of office. There are no laws to punish elected officials who violate their oath of office. The presidential oath of office, doesn’t carry any legal nor constitutional ramifications. It can be ignored at will. Congress has passed clearly unconstitutional laws since repeatedly since 1787, many but not all get overturned when/if somebody sues the government.
Refusing to enforce certain laws, selectively enforcing others, and inventing new laws, are clearly violations of his oath of office. His actions clearly show distain for both the rule of law, and equal protection. As much as I hate litigation, the GOP may have accidentally come across the only way to hold a president who violates his oath of office accountable, sue him. If they can prove to the courts that they have standing, then action might be possible, maybe.
The big question is can congress show damages caused by Obama violating his oath. If they can then litigation against the president may succeed. But congress must show both standing and damages or the case will rightly get tossed out. I believe showing they have standing will be relatively easy. In as much as there is no legal requirement nor logical requirement that a president must do what congress dictates, I don’t believe they will be able to show damages.
In any case, there are clearly not grounds for impeachment. Failure to enforce a law is clearly not treason, bribery, nor a crime. Changing the law to suit his whims is also not a crime, unconstitutional and a usurpation of power but not a crime. To hold the president accountable law must be created to make it a high crime for a president to willfully and knowingly change legislation by executive order. Such a law would of course be vetoed, so to create such a law will require 2/3’s of congress to support it. Good luck with that.
I hope the suit succeeds as the alternative is that the Obama presidency has set precedent that we elect a despot with no legislative limits to his authority. I’m just as afraid that extreme republican will abuse that power as Obama has proven an extreme Democrat will.
The whole Impeach Obama drive is drivel and a waste of time and effort from productive activities. First to impeach Obama you will have to prove to 2/3rds of the Democrat majority senate he’s guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At least according to the constitution. Obama is daring congress to try. The reason he is playing that gambit is not just because the senate is controlled by Democrats, but he has clearly Obama has not committed an impeachable offense.
What he has done is violate his oath of office, he is changing laws, and not enforcing laws, or selectively enforcing other laws at his whim. Currently there are no laws nor constitutional method for congress to hold the president accountable, if the president says to congress screw you and acts like a dictator. All congress can do directly is withhold money. That’s it.
Creating and changing laws is a power reserved to Congress, Obama has routinely changed law to suit his whims. Obama’s executive orders and actions may be unconstitutional but they are not illegal. Because Obamas actions are a mere violation of his Oath but not illegal they are not a high crimes or misdemeanors, nor are such actions treasonous, nor can his actions be proven to be bribery. Hence there is no constitutional grounds to impeach him.
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass any law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is not illegal for congress to pass unconstitutional laws. Congress as a whole, nor congressmen individually cannot be charged with treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor for creating unconstitutional laws. The same principle applies to the president, unconstitutional actions by the president are not constitutional grounds for impeachment. Oops that is a giant whole in our constitution. Our forefathers never considered an elected official so devoid of character that he would willfully and purposefully violate his Oath of Office, and abuse his power as Obama has.
There is no constitutional means of dealing with elected officials who violate their oath of office. There are no laws to punish elected officials who violate their oath of office. The presidential oath of office, doesn’t carry any legal nor constitutional ramifications. It can be ignored at will. Congress has passed clearly unconstitutional laws since repeatedly since 1787, many but not all get overturned when/if somebody sues the government.
Refusing to enforce certain laws, selectively enforcing others, and inventing new laws, are clearly violations of his oath of office. His actions clearly show distain for both the rule of law, and equal protection. As much as I hate litigation, the GOP may have accidentally come across the only way to hold a president who violates his oath of office accountable, sue him. If they can prove to the courts that they have standing, then action might be possible, maybe.
The big question is can congress show damages caused by Obama violating his oath. If they can then litigation against the president may succeed. But congress must show both standing and damages or the case will rightly get tossed out. I believe showing they have standing will be relatively easy. In as much as there is no legal requirement nor logical requirement that a president must do what congress dictates, I don’t believe they will be able to show damages.
In any case, there are clearly not grounds for impeachment. Failure to enforce a law is clearly not treason, bribery, nor a crime. Changing the law to suit his whims is also not a crime, unconstitutional and a usurpation of power but not a crime. To hold the president accountable law must be created to make it a high crime for a president to willfully and knowingly change legislation by executive order. Such a law would of course be vetoed, so to create such a law will require 2/3’s of congress to support it. Good luck with that.
I hope the suit succeeds as the alternative is that the Obama presidency has set precedent that we elect a despot with no legislative limits to his authority. I’m just as afraid that extreme republican will abuse that power as Obama has proven an extreme Democrat will.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
The Obama Administration Declares Women are Not Equal
By Tom Rhodes, 7/31/2014
In a lawsuit filed against the Pennsylvania State Police, Holder and the Department of Justice have clearly stated women cannot do the same job as men. They say that having equal requirements for both men and women is unequal. That is liberal logic.
Here is a cold hard fact, an objective truth, equality is a myth. Equality is no more real than fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, or werewolves. Appealing to equality as a reason to grant some group favored status is simply engaging in meaningless rhetoric. Feminist appeal to equality is nothing more than attempting to guilt-trip men into giving them power to establish pro-female inequality.
The Pennsylvania State Police are being sued by the Obama administration because they expect female cadets to complete the same minimum requirements as men. How is having the same standards for the same job for everybody regardless of group identification unequal? The fact is that 94% of men and 70% of women pass the state police physical fitness test. What that says is what everybody knows, men and women are not equal. It is not evidence of discrimination.
The Obama administration wants women to have equal treatment, unless of course women can’t compete. Then they want special treatment. What this law suit says loud and clear, is that women cannot compete on equal terms. The DOJ irrational notion of disparate impact, is a tool for feminist hustlers to force preferential treatment for women. They are saying that even if a policy is equal and has no intention of discrimination if women can’t compete it’s sexist and a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
So the Obama administration is saying women are not capable, therefore you must reduce your standards. Sorry to bust your bubble but men and women are not equal, they cannot do the same work and hence won’t have equal outcomes. If you believe otherwise, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and the DH. It is only unrealistic, utopian, illogical, emotional thinking that could ever justify expecting men and women to be equal in the market place. They are not equal, they are different.
Obama’s DOJ is suing those evil cops for having the audacity to treat female candidates the same as their male candidates. Don’t those evil bastards in Pennsylvania running the state police know that in Obama’s Fiefdom (formerly known as the USA), “equality” means treating everyone differently? In Obama’s utopia, anybody who cannot or will not perform to some standard is entitled to the same outcome as those who exceed or meet any standard. Welcome to the new utopian world of Obama. I hear that next month Obama will sick his DOJ attack dog, Holder, on the NBA and all teams will have to have at least one short fat old non-Hispanic white guy and one Asian woman, in their starting line-ups, the name of equality.
In a lawsuit filed against the Pennsylvania State Police, Holder and the Department of Justice have clearly stated women cannot do the same job as men. They say that having equal requirements for both men and women is unequal. That is liberal logic.
Here is a cold hard fact, an objective truth, equality is a myth. Equality is no more real than fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, or werewolves. Appealing to equality as a reason to grant some group favored status is simply engaging in meaningless rhetoric. Feminist appeal to equality is nothing more than attempting to guilt-trip men into giving them power to establish pro-female inequality.
The Pennsylvania State Police are being sued by the Obama administration because they expect female cadets to complete the same minimum requirements as men. How is having the same standards for the same job for everybody regardless of group identification unequal? The fact is that 94% of men and 70% of women pass the state police physical fitness test. What that says is what everybody knows, men and women are not equal. It is not evidence of discrimination.
The Obama administration wants women to have equal treatment, unless of course women can’t compete. Then they want special treatment. What this law suit says loud and clear, is that women cannot compete on equal terms. The DOJ irrational notion of disparate impact, is a tool for feminist hustlers to force preferential treatment for women. They are saying that even if a policy is equal and has no intention of discrimination if women can’t compete it’s sexist and a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
So the Obama administration is saying women are not capable, therefore you must reduce your standards. Sorry to bust your bubble but men and women are not equal, they cannot do the same work and hence won’t have equal outcomes. If you believe otherwise, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and the DH. It is only unrealistic, utopian, illogical, emotional thinking that could ever justify expecting men and women to be equal in the market place. They are not equal, they are different.
Obama’s DOJ is suing those evil cops for having the audacity to treat female candidates the same as their male candidates. Don’t those evil bastards in Pennsylvania running the state police know that in Obama’s Fiefdom (formerly known as the USA), “equality” means treating everyone differently? In Obama’s utopia, anybody who cannot or will not perform to some standard is entitled to the same outcome as those who exceed or meet any standard. Welcome to the new utopian world of Obama. I hear that next month Obama will sick his DOJ attack dog, Holder, on the NBA and all teams will have to have at least one short fat old non-Hispanic white guy and one Asian woman, in their starting line-ups, the name of equality.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
No Budget = No Recovery
By Tom Rhodes, 5/1/2014
The Wall Street Journal writes, “The U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter to one of the weakest paces of the five-year recovery. . . . “ I ask, “What Recovery?” The WSJ goes on, “Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”
The reason the GDP sucks is obvious; less than 1 in 5 households have even one fully employed person (look at unemployed and underemployed as measured by U6 in the official employment numbers). No workers = no production = no growth = stagnant GDP.
Over the time of the so called “recovery” real inflation has raised the actual cost of living by nearly 20%, while real wages are down. If the government wasn’t fudging the numbers, we’d see the great recession was followed by stagnation not recovery and we are headed into recession again. We have seen repeatedly a few months after the government announces the GDP they “correct” that number and for the past decade, is inevitably lower, what’s lower than 0.1% growth???
What we know about the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Senate is that they haven’t passed a budget in 5 years. That means there is no plan and it’s obvious. The reality is”
A government that can’t budget can’t govern!
The Wall Street Journal writes, “The U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter to one of the weakest paces of the five-year recovery. . . . “ I ask, “What Recovery?” The WSJ goes on, “Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”
The reason the GDP sucks is obvious; less than 1 in 5 households have even one fully employed person (look at unemployed and underemployed as measured by U6 in the official employment numbers). No workers = no production = no growth = stagnant GDP.
Over the time of the so called “recovery” real inflation has raised the actual cost of living by nearly 20%, while real wages are down. If the government wasn’t fudging the numbers, we’d see the great recession was followed by stagnation not recovery and we are headed into recession again. We have seen repeatedly a few months after the government announces the GDP they “correct” that number and for the past decade, is inevitably lower, what’s lower than 0.1% growth???
What we know about the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Senate is that they haven’t passed a budget in 5 years. That means there is no plan and it’s obvious. The reality is”
Friday, February 14, 2014
Obama Ushers in the End of Modern Civilization
By Tom Rhodes, 2/14/2014
Obama claimed he wanted to fundamentally change America while running for office. His methodology and actions will not only fundamentally change America but will end modern western civilization. No it’s not hyperbole. As I’ve noted in many previous articles, Obama and the ruling elite have effectively ended the rule of law and returning us to the norm for all of mankind. Rule by a few elite with little or no options for the masses.
In the USA the rule of law is dead. The Obama Administration has just announced that it ‘s 18th unilateral and arbitrarily change to the Obamacare ignoring The Constitution and the Checks and Balances of having congress not the president create law. The American political system has been perverted by a White House that doesn’t feel bound by the rule of law. The Wall Street Journal agrees:
If the President wants to change the law, he should propose legislation and send it to Congress – PERIOD! Anything else is illegal, unconstitutional, and carries no authority. Some enterprising individual should sue their company (of 50 to 100 employees) for not following the law, regardless of Obama’s claimed authority to delay the implementation beyond Congresses mandate. The reason Obama is avoiding having to deal with congress. The people elected congress and those representatives would force the White House to make concessions to get the changes it wants. It’s easier to ignore the Rule of Law and act like a two bit dictator.
The reason Obama can act like a two bit dictator and get away with it is simple. Political Correctness has perverted civilization. Political Correctness is the most telling feature of today's elite culture. The PC are consistently those who think of themselves as the best of people. Unlike the mere common persons, they believe that they have risen above xenophobic patriotism, racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and every other ism. They’re inclusive! Political correctness quite succinctly compliments the self-importance of elites. Their politically correct views are a signal of their moral right to rule.
Political correctness is a powerful tool used as a weapon with which to destroy competitors for power and status. If your view is traditional and not PC it is dismissed as economically naive, or as unable to recognize cultural differences, homophobic, etc. and are by definition unqualified to either rule or even have an opinion how those who are PC choose to rule. Anybody with a real education is in the know about these things! . . . not accepting PC means you’re an uneducated rube bitterly clinging to bourgeois ideas of the past.
The reason the ruling elite, like Obama, constantly work to enact laws to take your money, infringe on your constitutional rights, deny you your property, silence your dissent, and imprison or kill you if you try to resist, isn’t just believing that they know better than you how you should spend your time and your money, what you should eat, what car you should drive, what science you should believe and which sexual perversions you accept; they also hate you for not agreeing with them. Just as kings of old believed in their divine right to rule, you merely not accepting the ruling elites superiority is all the justification they need for marginalizing you, discriminating against you, blacklisting you or otherwise eliminate you.
This PC worldview allows the destruction of modern civilization. The very idea you a mere commoner, hold the ruling elite to the same laws you are subject is proof of your inferiority. Political Correctness allows the idea of democracy to overrun our republic. The difference is world view, a republic is ruled by law a democracy is ruled by opinion. Well we used to have a republic based on a Christian world view, today we have a tyranny based on worshiping the state. Statist leaders get angry that the people don’t just obey their tens of thousands of laws, they firmly believe that the ruling elite know better how everybody should live and reject the rule of law. Imagine if a congressman got caught doing drugs and was subjected to the same treatment as a 20 yr old black man. The Rule of Law is dead.
Obama’s White House is undermining the basic underpinnings of our system of governance to the point where we now live in a neo-feudal society not a Republic. The ruling elite are now unaccountable for the laws that they severely punish the rest of us. The major news outlets ignore Obama’s abuses of power, because they understand this and want to either be part of the ruling elite, or at least have the favor of the ruling elite. Obama arrogantly declaring he will ignore the Constitution goes unchallenged or are treated as a “gaffe” or “joke.” The absolute smoking gun that the IRS is targeting Obama’s detractors is not front page news because as Dinesh D’Souza can attest, pointing out the facts is dangerous. News this week that freedom of the press in the USA has deteriorated significantly is evidence. We are devolving to a neo-feudal society where an oligarchy rules, even the press. This is a collapse of civilization and reversion of society to warlord rule.
Consider the attack on what is generally regarded as civilized and good. Statists, specifically progressives routinely attack the underpinnings of modern western civilization. Civilized people generally recognize that for most people, having a married mother and father is a good thing; that being married to a member of the opposite sex, and raising a family, is a good thing; that celebrating the natural and innate differences between male and female, and allowing society to reap the respective strengths of each, is a good thing; parents are responsible for and not only have the duty but the right to raise their children with the values they believe; in essence the traditional family is a fundamental element to a civilized society. From a practical and moral and philosophic standpoint the traditional family is good. From a statist and liberal standpoint the traditional family must be destroyed, it undermines the idea that some others not related to you better understand what’s best for you and should have the right to dictate how you should live.
The elimination of the rule of law and destruction of the value of the traditional family are observably leading to the destruction of modern western civilization and a return to rule by the elite, the historic norm for mankind throughout history. Thus Obama is ushering in the end of modern western civilization, he, statists, progressives, etc. all think this is a good thing and is the “fundamental change” Obama promised and seeks.
Related Intemperate thoughts:
Collapse of the rule of law leads to clearly illogical excuses for not enforcing laws. Answer this question: If we must give illegal immigrants amnesty because children should not suffer for the “mistakes” of their parents, does that mean that murders who have kids should not be prosecuted? Or because the evidence is clear that children suffer most when their parents’ divorce, does it mean that parents shouldn’t be allowed to divorce if they have children? There just isn’t logic behind using the suffering of a person’s child as the basis to absolve that person from their crimes or even mistakes. Arguing the consequence is a classic fallacy in logic.
In Connecticut somewhere between 50 and 300 thousand people ignored the law to register their weapons by Jan 1. Although the news isn’t covering it as such, this is civil disobedience on a massive scale. Is massive civil disobedience soon to be the norm? How will the ruling elite react when the people say “no”? Can Connecticut handle a couple hundred thousand new “felons” in their judicial system who refuse to obey the ruling elites dictates? When the people realize the ruling elite are under no obligation to obey the restrictions placed on them by the people, the people, rightly or not, reject the obligation to obey the ruling elite. Thus ends the rule of law.
The most productive part of society that produces the surplus that pays for government, entitlements, and our modern western lifestyles is working aged men. No longer respected nor even allowed to be the lord of his home and head of his family, in massive numbers this group is deciding to hold up in mom’s basement and play video games rather than participate in a society that is overtly hostile to them. This is “freeing” as young men are unleashed or untethered from employment and traditional male roles to allow them to pursue their dreams, like being a pirate in “Assassin's Creed.” Who’s going to take up the slack, sacrifice, and do the dirty dangerous jobs or stay at the office 80hrs a week to create that surplus that made entitlements, social security, and all of modern western civilization possible?
There isn’t a 50 yr old women with 30 years of experience out in this week’s snow storms climbing power poles and insuring the rest of us have electricity. Women not taking hard dangerous work isn’t the problem. We’re lucky right now there is an experienced man willing to climb a pole and work on energized 69,000 volt lines in a snow storm to keep the heat on, the problem is there isn’t a 20 yr old apprentice freezing his ass off trying to learn from that lineman, and there isn’t a 20 yr old girl both willing and able to take up a dangerous physically demanding job that when the weather gets nasty requires 80 hour work week in the snow, slush, and rain while taking her away from her children and mate, and do that job week-in and week-out non-stop for 30+ years. Rather than rewarding the man who is willing to make the physical and temporal sacrifices doing the jobs and producing the surplus that make civilization possible, society is telling him he’s the oppressor and un-fair and takes the fruit of his labor and sacrifice and gives it to others who did nothing to earn it. Society has such contempt for the man who works hard and sacrifices it tells him he doesn’t know best how the fruit of his labor should be used, so it take his labor an redistribute it as the ruling elite dictate. It’s no wonder young men aren’t in college, or working, or marrying, they see society as wanting them to take all the risks but give up all the rewards.
Obama claimed he wanted to fundamentally change America while running for office. His methodology and actions will not only fundamentally change America but will end modern western civilization. No it’s not hyperbole. As I’ve noted in many previous articles, Obama and the ruling elite have effectively ended the rule of law and returning us to the norm for all of mankind. Rule by a few elite with little or no options for the masses.
In the USA the rule of law is dead. The Obama Administration has just announced that it ‘s 18th unilateral and arbitrarily change to the Obamacare ignoring The Constitution and the Checks and Balances of having congress not the president create law. The American political system has been perverted by a White House that doesn’t feel bound by the rule of law. The Wall Street Journal agrees:
…the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever. …last summer the Treasury offered a year-long delay until 2015 despite having no statutory authorization. …Now the new delay arrives amid a furious debate about jobs after a damning Congressional Budget Office report last week, only this time with liberals celebrating ObamaCare’s supposed benefits to the job market. …Oh, and the Treasury also notes that, “As these limited transition rules take effect, we will consider whether it is necessary to further extend any of them beyond 2015.” So the law may be suspended indefinitely if the White House feels like it. …The text of the Affordable Care Act specifically says when the mandate must take effect—”after December 31, 2013?—and does not give the White House the authority to change the terms. Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is.
If the President wants to change the law, he should propose legislation and send it to Congress – PERIOD! Anything else is illegal, unconstitutional, and carries no authority. Some enterprising individual should sue their company (of 50 to 100 employees) for not following the law, regardless of Obama’s claimed authority to delay the implementation beyond Congresses mandate. The reason Obama is avoiding having to deal with congress. The people elected congress and those representatives would force the White House to make concessions to get the changes it wants. It’s easier to ignore the Rule of Law and act like a two bit dictator.
The reason Obama can act like a two bit dictator and get away with it is simple. Political Correctness has perverted civilization. Political Correctness is the most telling feature of today's elite culture. The PC are consistently those who think of themselves as the best of people. Unlike the mere common persons, they believe that they have risen above xenophobic patriotism, racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and every other ism. They’re inclusive! Political correctness quite succinctly compliments the self-importance of elites. Their politically correct views are a signal of their moral right to rule.
Political correctness is a powerful tool used as a weapon with which to destroy competitors for power and status. If your view is traditional and not PC it is dismissed as economically naive, or as unable to recognize cultural differences, homophobic, etc. and are by definition unqualified to either rule or even have an opinion how those who are PC choose to rule. Anybody with a real education is in the know about these things! . . . not accepting PC means you’re an uneducated rube bitterly clinging to bourgeois ideas of the past.
The reason the ruling elite, like Obama, constantly work to enact laws to take your money, infringe on your constitutional rights, deny you your property, silence your dissent, and imprison or kill you if you try to resist, isn’t just believing that they know better than you how you should spend your time and your money, what you should eat, what car you should drive, what science you should believe and which sexual perversions you accept; they also hate you for not agreeing with them. Just as kings of old believed in their divine right to rule, you merely not accepting the ruling elites superiority is all the justification they need for marginalizing you, discriminating against you, blacklisting you or otherwise eliminate you.
This PC worldview allows the destruction of modern civilization. The very idea you a mere commoner, hold the ruling elite to the same laws you are subject is proof of your inferiority. Political Correctness allows the idea of democracy to overrun our republic. The difference is world view, a republic is ruled by law a democracy is ruled by opinion. Well we used to have a republic based on a Christian world view, today we have a tyranny based on worshiping the state. Statist leaders get angry that the people don’t just obey their tens of thousands of laws, they firmly believe that the ruling elite know better how everybody should live and reject the rule of law. Imagine if a congressman got caught doing drugs and was subjected to the same treatment as a 20 yr old black man. The Rule of Law is dead.
Obama’s White House is undermining the basic underpinnings of our system of governance to the point where we now live in a neo-feudal society not a Republic. The ruling elite are now unaccountable for the laws that they severely punish the rest of us. The major news outlets ignore Obama’s abuses of power, because they understand this and want to either be part of the ruling elite, or at least have the favor of the ruling elite. Obama arrogantly declaring he will ignore the Constitution goes unchallenged or are treated as a “gaffe” or “joke.” The absolute smoking gun that the IRS is targeting Obama’s detractors is not front page news because as Dinesh D’Souza can attest, pointing out the facts is dangerous. News this week that freedom of the press in the USA has deteriorated significantly is evidence. We are devolving to a neo-feudal society where an oligarchy rules, even the press. This is a collapse of civilization and reversion of society to warlord rule.
Consider the attack on what is generally regarded as civilized and good. Statists, specifically progressives routinely attack the underpinnings of modern western civilization. Civilized people generally recognize that for most people, having a married mother and father is a good thing; that being married to a member of the opposite sex, and raising a family, is a good thing; that celebrating the natural and innate differences between male and female, and allowing society to reap the respective strengths of each, is a good thing; parents are responsible for and not only have the duty but the right to raise their children with the values they believe; in essence the traditional family is a fundamental element to a civilized society. From a practical and moral and philosophic standpoint the traditional family is good. From a statist and liberal standpoint the traditional family must be destroyed, it undermines the idea that some others not related to you better understand what’s best for you and should have the right to dictate how you should live.
The elimination of the rule of law and destruction of the value of the traditional family are observably leading to the destruction of modern western civilization and a return to rule by the elite, the historic norm for mankind throughout history. Thus Obama is ushering in the end of modern western civilization, he, statists, progressives, etc. all think this is a good thing and is the “fundamental change” Obama promised and seeks.
Related Intemperate thoughts:
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Baker Act Obama
By Tom Rhodes, 11/6/2013
Recent events make it clear that we need to question Obama’s competency to hold office. I don’t mean is he inept, I mean is he mentally and emotionally competent to hold office? Obama will not, and probably emotionally cannot, take responsibility for his own actions and words. By now everybody knows he made a calculated political decision and purposefully lied to the American people in order to pass Obamacare.
No amount of torture to the facts will change them. What is now clearly evident is that he has real difficulty taking responsibility for anything he says or does. Even if you love Obama you can’t ignore this fact. There are dozens of video accounts of Obama making this clear declarative promise to the American people in order to get them to urge their congress persons to enact Obamacare. “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance." In every case it made it very clear with no “ifs” “ands” or “buts.”
NBC, not noted for being anti-Obama, also released news showing proof that Obama and his administration knew that Obamacare would result in MILLIONS of people being forced out of their individual insurance plans. Knowing the truth at the time he repeatedly promised America “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance" without putting in any qualifying “ifs” “ands” or “buts” leads to a clear and unambiguous conclusion: Obama purposefully made a calculated decision to lie and mislead the American people.
Obama knew if he told the truth his chosen path to reach his clearly stated goal of single payer government controlled health care would falter, so he clearly and purposefully lied to the American people. Now that he has been caught and exposed, even as a lame-duck who that cannot be reelected and doesn’t have to run for office, he won’t admit to the truth that he and everybody else knows. If it weren’t real and so costly to our society and culture, you might think it’s funny; Substitute a Dead Parrot for Obamacare and you feel like you’re watching an old Monty Python sketch.
This week he again lied saying, "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
That isn’t what he said, that isn’t what he implied, that isn’t what he meant; I know it, you know it, the press knows it, Obama’s administration knows it, and Obama knows it. He made a promise loud and clear that he knew was a lie, and now that it’s exposed he isn’t man enough, strong enough, or honest enough to own it. He sold us a Dead Parrot.
Most parents won’t even tolerate that from their 6 year old child; from the man elected to the highest office in the land, it’s unacceptable, despicable, immature, self deluded, irrational behavior. When an adult is confronted with clear uncontroversial video evidence of their lies, and maintain that they weren’t lying, something is clearly wrong. Obama needs help, he’s got a sick mind and obviously suffers from some kind of delusion. He needs professional help. You’ve heard of a “Napoleon Complex” haven’t you? There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have become obviously mentally unstable, Caligula comes to mind.
In this day and age with our advanced psychological diagnostics and counseling techniques, I’m sure he can be helped, maybe use electroshock therapy. In Florida we have the “Baker Act” where a person whose mental stability makes us suspect that they are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily locked up. In as much as his decisions can be imminently dangerous to massive numbers of people it is clear that we should Baker Act Obama.
Recent events make it clear that we need to question Obama’s competency to hold office. I don’t mean is he inept, I mean is he mentally and emotionally competent to hold office? Obama will not, and probably emotionally cannot, take responsibility for his own actions and words. By now everybody knows he made a calculated political decision and purposefully lied to the American people in order to pass Obamacare.
No amount of torture to the facts will change them. What is now clearly evident is that he has real difficulty taking responsibility for anything he says or does. Even if you love Obama you can’t ignore this fact. There are dozens of video accounts of Obama making this clear declarative promise to the American people in order to get them to urge their congress persons to enact Obamacare. “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance." In every case it made it very clear with no “ifs” “ands” or “buts.”
NBC, not noted for being anti-Obama, also released news showing proof that Obama and his administration knew that Obamacare would result in MILLIONS of people being forced out of their individual insurance plans. Knowing the truth at the time he repeatedly promised America “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance" without putting in any qualifying “ifs” “ands” or “buts” leads to a clear and unambiguous conclusion: Obama purposefully made a calculated decision to lie and mislead the American people.
Obama knew if he told the truth his chosen path to reach his clearly stated goal of single payer government controlled health care would falter, so he clearly and purposefully lied to the American people. Now that he has been caught and exposed, even as a lame-duck who that cannot be reelected and doesn’t have to run for office, he won’t admit to the truth that he and everybody else knows. If it weren’t real and so costly to our society and culture, you might think it’s funny; Substitute a Dead Parrot for Obamacare and you feel like you’re watching an old Monty Python sketch.
This week he again lied saying, "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
That isn’t what he said, that isn’t what he implied, that isn’t what he meant; I know it, you know it, the press knows it, Obama’s administration knows it, and Obama knows it. He made a promise loud and clear that he knew was a lie, and now that it’s exposed he isn’t man enough, strong enough, or honest enough to own it. He sold us a Dead Parrot.
Most parents won’t even tolerate that from their 6 year old child; from the man elected to the highest office in the land, it’s unacceptable, despicable, immature, self deluded, irrational behavior. When an adult is confronted with clear uncontroversial video evidence of their lies, and maintain that they weren’t lying, something is clearly wrong. Obama needs help, he’s got a sick mind and obviously suffers from some kind of delusion. He needs professional help. You’ve heard of a “Napoleon Complex” haven’t you? There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have become obviously mentally unstable, Caligula comes to mind.
In this day and age with our advanced psychological diagnostics and counseling techniques, I’m sure he can be helped, maybe use electroshock therapy. In Florida we have the “Baker Act” where a person whose mental stability makes us suspect that they are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily locked up. In as much as his decisions can be imminently dangerous to massive numbers of people it is clear that we should Baker Act Obama.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Obama’s Juvenile Temper Tantrum
By Tom Rhodes, 10/4/2013
Concerning the upcoming fight on increasing the Debt Limit, I agree fully with President Obama who said:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
– Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, March 2006
He was 100% right! But that was 2006 when he was a senator. Today he calls any senators saying those very same words “deadbeats” and refuses to negotiate with them. He even has the chutzpa to tell the American people that raising the Debt ceiling won’t raise the national debt.
Obama thinks and acts like the American you’re stupid. The government is “shut down” so he uses more people, materials, and labor to but fences and blocks around national monuments than it takes to do nothing and just leave them open. I’ve been to DC several times, having a nice NPS ranger to standing around to answer questions about the Jefferson memorial is nice, but not necessary. It’s outside, composed of circular marble steps, a portico, a circular colonnade of Ionic order columns, and a shallow dome, the building is open to the elements, has no doors etc.
Ever have your own blog or web page? Take this one, LPCitrus , when I don’t have time (time is money) to work on it, it doesn’t go away, in fact to take it down takes more work and effort and time (hence money) than to just leave it up until I have the time. The shutdown of all the National Park Service and other Government web sites cost more than leaving them up. If we are shut down because the government can’t spend money where did the money come from to shut the web sites down, and why shut them down if they would work and provide service to the American people even during a shutdown with ZERO additional effort.
The answer is obvious, a government shut down is painless to almost all of the people of the USA, Obama and the Democrats are actively trying to cause the most pain they can to get their way. They were offered virtually all the spending on everything but Obamacare and because they refuse to compromise with the Representatives the people put in the House to control spending, government is shut down. Blocking off an outside building made of marble, granite, and concrete is an active political act costing more than leaving it open. Obviously Obama thinks you’re too stupid to realize it. Blaming anybody, the Republicans or even Democrats in the House or Senate is absurd, this is all Obama.
Obama is a crybaby who when he doesn’t get his way decides to take your ball and throws a tantrum to get his way.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Is the President a Liar?
By Tom Rhodes, 10/1/2013
Obama lovers and Democrats have two choices. Admit that it is their party and Obama who refuses to compromise and are shutting down the government, or . . . or call President B. H. Obama a liar.
Yesterday he made it clear declaring "I shouldn't have to offer anything." Thus boldly proclaiming to the American public that he either gets everything he wants or the government will be shut down. He chafes at the fact that constitutionally the House of Representatives, not the president, controls the purse strings of the nation. Offered a spending bill that funds everything he wants except for 1 thing, and he refuses to compromise.
The House not the Senate, not the President, is elected by more than just big cities, small congressional districts around the country all get a say in our government, even where money is spent. Power was divided in that way so that the cities and big states couldn't dictate to "flyover" country. As such if a president wants to spend, he has to deal with the one part of the legislature that represents all of America, not just big cities.
He's only the president and it's the House of Representatives that has the responsibility and is accountable to the people for spending. If he wants to spend where the people's representatives don't want to spend, then he has to offer something. He offers more compromise to Syria and Iran than he does congress. His obstinance not congress has shut down the government.
Speaking of shutting down government; if "non essential" people are being furloughed, why not just eliminate their jobs? The government should be reduced to only "essential" personal and functions.
Obama lovers and Democrats have two choices. Admit that it is their party and Obama who refuses to compromise and are shutting down the government, or . . . or call President B. H. Obama a liar.
Yesterday he made it clear declaring "I shouldn't have to offer anything." Thus boldly proclaiming to the American public that he either gets everything he wants or the government will be shut down. He chafes at the fact that constitutionally the House of Representatives, not the president, controls the purse strings of the nation. Offered a spending bill that funds everything he wants except for 1 thing, and he refuses to compromise.
The House not the Senate, not the President, is elected by more than just big cities, small congressional districts around the country all get a say in our government, even where money is spent. Power was divided in that way so that the cities and big states couldn't dictate to "flyover" country. As such if a president wants to spend, he has to deal with the one part of the legislature that represents all of America, not just big cities.
He's only the president and it's the House of Representatives that has the responsibility and is accountable to the people for spending. If he wants to spend where the people's representatives don't want to spend, then he has to offer something. He offers more compromise to Syria and Iran than he does congress. His obstinance not congress has shut down the government.
Speaking of shutting down government; if "non essential" people are being furloughed, why not just eliminate their jobs? The government should be reduced to only "essential" personal and functions.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Contradiction of UN Arms Treaty
By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2013
Wednesday Obama directed Sec. of State John Kerry to sign the UN Arms treaty, in direct opposition to the Senate whose majority boldly told Obama that it would not ratify such a treaty. The treaty creates binding requirements for states to review cross-border contracts to ensure that weapons will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism, violations of humanitarian law or organized crime.
Ummm. didn't Obama just send a few million dollars worth of Arms to Al-Qaida in Syria to support the "rebels?" The Jihadist groups that dominate the Syrian rebel coalition routinely commit human rights abuses violating humanitarian law. They are known for their terrorist tactics, beheadings, kidnapping, and all manner of barbaric violent lawless actions.
Obama's actions make it obvious that he doesn't plan on honoring the part of the treaty that keeps arms from groups that commit terrorism, and other human rights violations. So why did he sign the treaty?
Although the claims of Kerry and the Obama administration are that it doesn't affect private individuals and their Second Amendment rights, reading the treaty makes it clear that those assertions are lies. The words and actions of Obama are a matter of record and make it clear that his plans are to use the treaty to override the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Face it the USA can do whatever it wants and single country nor coalition has the strength to do anything about it, that is the primary reason we are hated internationally. International Law is useless and only binds countries like the USA, so called "rogue states" simply ignore it, because we willing allow ourselves to acquiesce. The goal of the UN is a total failure, there are more armed conflicts today than when it was formed, it doesn't work. UN treaties, and UN law, cannot and do not provide the US with any national security, and are unenforceable. Look at the member states who sit on the UN Human Rights Commission, no rational person could not know that it is a sham.
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21>Text of UN Arms Treaty
Article 12 of the treaty makes it pretty clear that states should maintain national registries of small arms end users for minimum of one decade. Obama's actions are clear, they say, "I'm going to give arms to terrorists I like, but sign treaties that allow me to sidestep the restrictions the US Constitution put on me, to track the arms of US citizens. Registration will make it easier to disarm them."
Newsflash - genocides do not occur, where the people are armed. Not the every disarmed society succumbs to a genocidal government, but armed societies don't suffer genocide. Ask Native Americans who we disarmed how well they faired? Or the Jews of Germany, etc.
Want to read an unabashed libertarian SciFi action novel that beats up on the UN? Obama signing this god-awful treaty reminded me of the book,Rebel Moon, an updated version of Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress. This book is not targeted to the ladies, as it has lots of descriptions of individual battle, computer hacking, and other guy techie stuff. The target audience is clearly male gamers who aren't ignorant of politics (one of the authors, Voxday, is also the programmer/owner of software company that produced the game of the same name in the 90's). The basic plot is in the 21st century the Moon is colonized and produces much of the food needed for the world. The world is now governed by the United Nations, which is, well, the UN. After years of mismanagement and heavy-handed administration, the colonies revolt against the New World Order and declare themselves a free state. The premise since Heinlein first told it over 60 years ago is now cliché but like old John Wayne movies can and should be enjoyed for what they are not what they aren't.
Wednesday Obama directed Sec. of State John Kerry to sign the UN Arms treaty, in direct opposition to the Senate whose majority boldly told Obama that it would not ratify such a treaty. The treaty creates binding requirements for states to review cross-border contracts to ensure that weapons will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism, violations of humanitarian law or organized crime.
Ummm. didn't Obama just send a few million dollars worth of Arms to Al-Qaida in Syria to support the "rebels?" The Jihadist groups that dominate the Syrian rebel coalition routinely commit human rights abuses violating humanitarian law. They are known for their terrorist tactics, beheadings, kidnapping, and all manner of barbaric violent lawless actions.
Obama's actions make it obvious that he doesn't plan on honoring the part of the treaty that keeps arms from groups that commit terrorism, and other human rights violations. So why did he sign the treaty?
Although the claims of Kerry and the Obama administration are that it doesn't affect private individuals and their Second Amendment rights, reading the treaty makes it clear that those assertions are lies. The words and actions of Obama are a matter of record and make it clear that his plans are to use the treaty to override the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Face it the USA can do whatever it wants and single country nor coalition has the strength to do anything about it, that is the primary reason we are hated internationally. International Law is useless and only binds countries like the USA, so called "rogue states" simply ignore it, because we willing allow ourselves to acquiesce. The goal of the UN is a total failure, there are more armed conflicts today than when it was formed, it doesn't work. UN treaties, and UN law, cannot and do not provide the US with any national security, and are unenforceable. Look at the member states who sit on the UN Human Rights Commission, no rational person could not know that it is a sham.
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21>Text of UN Arms Treaty
Article 12 of the treaty makes it pretty clear that states should maintain national registries of small arms end users for minimum of one decade. Obama's actions are clear, they say, "I'm going to give arms to terrorists I like, but sign treaties that allow me to sidestep the restrictions the US Constitution put on me, to track the arms of US citizens. Registration will make it easier to disarm them."
Newsflash - genocides do not occur, where the people are armed. Not the every disarmed society succumbs to a genocidal government, but armed societies don't suffer genocide. Ask Native Americans who we disarmed how well they faired? Or the Jews of Germany, etc.
Want to read an unabashed libertarian SciFi action novel that beats up on the UN? Obama signing this god-awful treaty reminded me of the book,Rebel Moon, an updated version of Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress. This book is not targeted to the ladies, as it has lots of descriptions of individual battle, computer hacking, and other guy techie stuff. The target audience is clearly male gamers who aren't ignorant of politics (one of the authors, Voxday, is also the programmer/owner of software company that produced the game of the same name in the 90's). The basic plot is in the 21st century the Moon is colonized and produces much of the food needed for the world. The world is now governed by the United Nations, which is, well, the UN. After years of mismanagement and heavy-handed administration, the colonies revolt against the New World Order and declare themselves a free state. The premise since Heinlein first told it over 60 years ago is now cliché but like old John Wayne movies can and should be enjoyed for what they are not what they aren't.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Slate declares Obama’s are Bad People
By Tom Rhodes, 8/1/2013
Allison Benedikt of Slate published “a manifesto” decrying the Obama’s as bad people, titled: “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person”
Read it for yourself, the premise is a simplistic revelation of liberal guilt. The idea being because good parents sacrifice and send their kids to good private schools instead of public schools they are depriving the public schools of good dedicated parents who will work to hold that school accountable. The reason public schools are failing is because good students with responsible parents abandon them. She claims that yes your kid will not get as good an education for a few generations as they could but so what, because you’re a good parent they will do fine. It’s unfair that the public school is deprived of good students with good parents. Benedikt says, “You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it.”
Simple liberal logic, society’s needs for good parents and good student as models in public school outweighs a family’s needs and desires. Liberals simplistically believe that public education equals strong society and that all people have a duty to society greater than to themselves and their families. It’s simply unfair that your child has parents willing to sacrifice and make sure your child gets the best education they can and other children don’t, so to make things fair she is trying to guilt you into sending your child to public school.
Of course this is sheeple speek, to guilt the middle class. In reality you know that this isn’t true and that liberal in power don’t believe it to be true either, just look at liberal leaders, specifically the President of the United States, Obama. His kids don’t go to the local public schools in DC. Imagine how much safer a public school in DC would be because of the necessary Secret Service that would be there to protect Obama’s kids. Imagine how much better the educational opportunities would be for all the students of the DC public school would be if Michelle Obama was a member of the PTA. The Obama’s deprived Washington DC public schools the benefits of having their children in public school.
The Obama’s actions speak far louder than words. They know public education in DC sucks, and as such their children will not be exposed to the violence and culture that has resulted on one of the most expensive and poorest performing public school systems in the USA. It’s clear they don’t care about the community they live and as Allison Benedikt of Slate claims, they are Bad People.
Allison Benedikt of Slate published “a manifesto” decrying the Obama’s as bad people, titled: “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person”
Read it for yourself, the premise is a simplistic revelation of liberal guilt. The idea being because good parents sacrifice and send their kids to good private schools instead of public schools they are depriving the public schools of good dedicated parents who will work to hold that school accountable. The reason public schools are failing is because good students with responsible parents abandon them. She claims that yes your kid will not get as good an education for a few generations as they could but so what, because you’re a good parent they will do fine. It’s unfair that the public school is deprived of good students with good parents. Benedikt says, “You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it.”
Simple liberal logic, society’s needs for good parents and good student as models in public school outweighs a family’s needs and desires. Liberals simplistically believe that public education equals strong society and that all people have a duty to society greater than to themselves and their families. It’s simply unfair that your child has parents willing to sacrifice and make sure your child gets the best education they can and other children don’t, so to make things fair she is trying to guilt you into sending your child to public school.
Of course this is sheeple speek, to guilt the middle class. In reality you know that this isn’t true and that liberal in power don’t believe it to be true either, just look at liberal leaders, specifically the President of the United States, Obama. His kids don’t go to the local public schools in DC. Imagine how much safer a public school in DC would be because of the necessary Secret Service that would be there to protect Obama’s kids. Imagine how much better the educational opportunities would be for all the students of the DC public school would be if Michelle Obama was a member of the PTA. The Obama’s deprived Washington DC public schools the benefits of having their children in public school.
The Obama’s actions speak far louder than words. They know public education in DC sucks, and as such their children will not be exposed to the violence and culture that has resulted on one of the most expensive and poorest performing public school systems in the USA. It’s clear they don’t care about the community they live and as Allison Benedikt of Slate claims, they are Bad People.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
A Large and Sophisticated Banana Republic
Or Why Do We Even Have a Congress Anymore?
By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2013
The constitution is dead, our government willfully ignores it and openly defies the clear separation of powers and limits to the Federal Government. We live in a banana republic. The only difference between the USA and some third world despotic hellhole is that our banana republic is large and sophisticated mired in bureaucracy that has shadows of former lawfulness.
The wisdom of our forefathers was a result of viewing and analyzing history dialectically terminating in the idea that government is a necessary evil, and that because it is made of men, and men are corrupted by power, the power of government should be divided. Hence a system with checks and balances where those who created laws didn't have the power to enforce them nor judge them, those who enforced the law could not create the law nor judge the law, and those who judge have no authority to create nor enforce the law. When coupled with the idea and reality of the "rule of law" which implies and demands that those in power are not exempt from the law and must live by the laws they create, enforce and judge; he Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law produced the Checks and Balances which our government was famous. Key word WAS.
The Constitution is clear, only Congress, not the President, may create law (regulations are law). Why do we bother having a congress if the President can dictate through executive order or regulatory agency, laws. Why should any citizen have confidence in the law created by their duly elected representative? Congress debates, compromises with all representatives to create law that represents the desires of the electorate, then the president says "screw the law this is what we're doing." That undermines all law. When Obama declares "I'm not going to wait for Congress!" he is boldly claiming to be a dictator, and regardless of the will of the people will dictate the law.
This is a pattern of Che' Obama, who routinely ignores with impudence both Congress and the Judiciary. A very recent example is total disregard for the law, the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary happened July of this year when The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the federal appeals courts in D.C. and Philadelphia in ruling President Obama's National Labor Relations Board recess appointments, who by law must be approved by Congress, were unconstitutional. Che' Obama has to date simply ignored the rulings his unlawfully appointed henchmen still run the NLRB.
Why have a body to create law, if the result can be twisted and ignored at a whim. What good will any law be created by congress if the president can unilaterally alter what he signs. To pass Obamacare, provisions were included that made government employees subject to the same rules and regulations mere citizens; on Aug. 14, 2013 Che' Obama dictated to his minions to delay the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority; Thus negating the law with neither due process nor legislation, a clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.
The issue of the end of the Rule of Law, and the USA's decent into Banana Republic status has even been noticed by more main stream media. Investor's Business Daily published what they call "just a small sampling" of a "Lengthy Legacy of Lawlessness" by Che' Obama and the federal government including:
February 3, 2010: Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama administration in contempt for re-imposing an offshore drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
March 1, 2011: Attorney General Holder lied to Congress, saying "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department." Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by DOJ attorneys.
May 3, 2011: When asked when he first heard of Operation Fast and Furious, Attorney General Eric Holder falsely testified, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." Head of the National Drug Intelligence Center Michael Walther told Holder about Fast and Furious in a July 2010 memo. Subsequent revelations showed he knew all along.
March 27, 2012: EPA issued final rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions on electric utilities that require power plants to use non-existing carbon capture-and-control technology to meet new emission standards, in defiance of the Congress' rejection of cap-and-trade legislation.
April 23, 2012: The administration postponed Medicare Advantage cuts by calling them a "demonstration project" and used funds not approved by Congress to delay effects of those cuts before the election.
June 15, 2012: The Obama administration announced it will stop deporting illegal immigrants under the age of 30 in a "deferred action" policy to circumvent immigration laws. This comes after Congress rejected a similar measure about a year ago. Since then, more than 500,000 illegals have received the deferment and only 20,000 have been rejected. As for the law-abiding applicants who have been waiting in line, well, that's Obama's idea of "lawfulness." The constitution is extremely clear and specifically grants Congress, not the president, the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", Che' Obama has made it clear that not only is he usurping Congress's power but throwing out the idea of a "uniform Rule of Naturalization;
May 10, 2013: The IRS revealed it targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status beginning in March 2010, a direct targeting of political opponents through the tax laws. It's one of the crimes that led Congress to impeach President Nixon.
May 13, 2013: AP reported the DOJ secretly collected phone records of AP reporters and editors, a move completely outside the realm of law. Even the AP - which up until then had been pretty submissive to the Obama agenda - was appalled by the breach.
May 20, 2013: A Washington Post article revealed that Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the DOJ, which subpoenaed his phone records and emails in direct contravention of the First Amendment under the pretense of a leak investigation.
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is "unconstitutional" and that "the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance." Instead of complying with the ruling, Holder filed suit to order Texas to submit to preclearance, in defiance of Congress' authority to legislate and the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
July 1, 2013: The Obama administration unilaterally decided to delay the employer mandate provision of ObamaCare for a year, which is to provide information to the feds about the extent of an applicant's insurance. Never mind that the law states the mandate must go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014 - they are now relying on the "honor system" from applicants to determine if they are qualified for subsidies. drilling moratorium that was struck down by the courts.
The noise and commotion of our congress is now irrelevant and unnecessary as the Che' Obama has thrown off even the suggestion that we actually live in a democratic republic. The evidence is clear, Che' Obama is the despotic ruler of the world's largest and most sophisticated banana republic.
By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2013
The constitution is dead, our government willfully ignores it and openly defies the clear separation of powers and limits to the Federal Government. We live in a banana republic. The only difference between the USA and some third world despotic hellhole is that our banana republic is large and sophisticated mired in bureaucracy that has shadows of former lawfulness.
The wisdom of our forefathers was a result of viewing and analyzing history dialectically terminating in the idea that government is a necessary evil, and that because it is made of men, and men are corrupted by power, the power of government should be divided. Hence a system with checks and balances where those who created laws didn't have the power to enforce them nor judge them, those who enforced the law could not create the law nor judge the law, and those who judge have no authority to create nor enforce the law. When coupled with the idea and reality of the "rule of law" which implies and demands that those in power are not exempt from the law and must live by the laws they create, enforce and judge; he Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law produced the Checks and Balances which our government was famous. Key word WAS.
The Constitution is clear, only Congress, not the President, may create law (regulations are law). Why do we bother having a congress if the President can dictate through executive order or regulatory agency, laws. Why should any citizen have confidence in the law created by their duly elected representative? Congress debates, compromises with all representatives to create law that represents the desires of the electorate, then the president says "screw the law this is what we're doing." That undermines all law. When Obama declares "I'm not going to wait for Congress!" he is boldly claiming to be a dictator, and regardless of the will of the people will dictate the law.
This is a pattern of Che' Obama, who routinely ignores with impudence both Congress and the Judiciary. A very recent example is total disregard for the law, the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary happened July of this year when The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the federal appeals courts in D.C. and Philadelphia in ruling President Obama's National Labor Relations Board recess appointments, who by law must be approved by Congress, were unconstitutional. Che' Obama has to date simply ignored the rulings his unlawfully appointed henchmen still run the NLRB.
Why have a body to create law, if the result can be twisted and ignored at a whim. What good will any law be created by congress if the president can unilaterally alter what he signs. To pass Obamacare, provisions were included that made government employees subject to the same rules and regulations mere citizens; on Aug. 14, 2013 Che' Obama dictated to his minions to delay the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority; Thus negating the law with neither due process nor legislation, a clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.
The issue of the end of the Rule of Law, and the USA's decent into Banana Republic status has even been noticed by more main stream media. Investor's Business Daily published what they call "just a small sampling" of a "Lengthy Legacy of Lawlessness" by Che' Obama and the federal government including:
The noise and commotion of our congress is now irrelevant and unnecessary as the Che' Obama has thrown off even the suggestion that we actually live in a democratic republic. The evidence is clear, Che' Obama is the despotic ruler of the world's largest and most sophisticated banana republic.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Impeach the Tyrant
By Tom Rhodes, 6/7/2013
Yesterday was D-Day: The day we said enough is enough and took action to defeat Nazi Germany and turned the tide of totalitarian evil away from Europe and shown resolve to defend those in need. However Headlines in the USA showed that the once free country of the USA is now just another statist tyranny. Here are the news stories from June 6:
The Obama administration acknowledged that it is collecting a massive amount of telephone records from at least one carrier, reopening the debate over privacy even as it defended the practice as necessary to protect Americans against attack.
The National Security Agency has long justified its spying powers by arguing that its charter allows surveillance on those outside of the United States, while avoiding intrusions into the private communications of American citizens. But the latest revelation of the extent of the NSA’s surveillance shows that it has focused specifically on Americans, to the degree that its data collection has in at least one major spying incident explicitly excluded those outside the United States.
U.S. border agents should continue to be allowed to search a traveler’s laptop, cellphone or other electronic device and keep copies of any data on them based on no more than a hunch, according to an internal Homeland Security Department study. It contends limiting such searches would prevent the U.S. from detecting child pornographers or terrorists and expose the government to lawsuits.
The FBI is unhappy that there are communications technologies it cannot intercept, and wants a new requirement that software makers and communications companies create a back door so they can listen in when they want.
Although since modified even the NYTimes opined that Obama’s credibility is gone saying; “The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”
No longer does the government serve the people, it now rules with different rules for those in the ruling elite, and drastic and severe punishment for the masses who don’t go along. There is now a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably a design to reduce us to absolute Despotism. Such is the patient sufferance of We the People. The history of the present Ruling Elite in Washington DC is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over We the People. 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 President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Obama must be removed from office, otherwise as our forefathers reacted under tyranny, so too will We the People.
Yesterday was D-Day: The day we said enough is enough and took action to defeat Nazi Germany and turned the tide of totalitarian evil away from Europe and shown resolve to defend those in need. However Headlines in the USA showed that the once free country of the USA is now just another statist tyranny. Here are the news stories from June 6:
Although since modified even the NYTimes opined that Obama’s credibility is gone saying; “The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”
No longer does the government serve the people, it now rules with different rules for those in the ruling elite, and drastic and severe punishment for the masses who don’t go along. There is now a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably a design to reduce us to absolute Despotism. Such is the patient sufferance of We the People. The history of the present Ruling Elite in Washington DC is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over We the People. 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 President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Obama must be removed from office, otherwise as our forefathers reacted under tyranny, so too will We the People.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Plausible Deniability
By Tom Rhodes, 5/31/2013
The term, Plausible Deniability, has been in the lexicon of the USA since the Kennedy administration. Most often used in movies or TV to justify not telling the President something or other. Recent news eliminates the possibility that President Obama has "Plausible Deniability" regarding the IRS targeting individuals and groups he doesn't like. No rationale or reasonable person can conclude the actions of the IRS were unknown to the President - PERIOD.
It has been publicly released and verified that the Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, has visited the White House at least 157 times during under Obama. That's more than even trusted cabinet member Eric Holder. Of those 157 visits 118 occurred during the period where the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.
Let's be real, under Bush the IRS commissioner only visited the White House once in four years. The volume of visits suggest only one thing, the IRS and Obama's White House were working together, the IRS's actions point to the conclusion they were working together in a campaign against the president's political opponents. The IRS and the Obama Administration met far more often than did the Sec. of State, Treasury Sec., etc.
No rational person can conclude Obama didn't know the IRS was targeting his enemies. In fact no reasonable person could conclude anything other than Obama targeted his political enemies using the power of the state. Targeting political enemies with official tax collectors, etc. is the hallmark of third world governments. Obama is again showing his actions are more like those of third world despots than those of a first world republic.
The term, Plausible Deniability, has been in the lexicon of the USA since the Kennedy administration. Most often used in movies or TV to justify not telling the President something or other. Recent news eliminates the possibility that President Obama has "Plausible Deniability" regarding the IRS targeting individuals and groups he doesn't like. No rationale or reasonable person can conclude the actions of the IRS were unknown to the President - PERIOD.
It has been publicly released and verified that the Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, has visited the White House at least 157 times during under Obama. That's more than even trusted cabinet member Eric Holder. Of those 157 visits 118 occurred during the period where the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.
Let's be real, under Bush the IRS commissioner only visited the White House once in four years. The volume of visits suggest only one thing, the IRS and Obama's White House were working together, the IRS's actions point to the conclusion they were working together in a campaign against the president's political opponents. The IRS and the Obama Administration met far more often than did the Sec. of State, Treasury Sec., etc.
No rational person can conclude Obama didn't know the IRS was targeting his enemies. In fact no reasonable person could conclude anything other than Obama targeted his political enemies using the power of the state. Targeting political enemies with official tax collectors, etc. is the hallmark of third world governments. Obama is again showing his actions are more like those of third world despots than those of a first world republic.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Tyranny of a Third World Despot
By Tom Rhodes, 5/20/2013
Obama's Hubris is now legendary. Compare the speech he gave at Ohio State with the official comments his minions at the IRS are stating.
On May 5th to Ohio State University graduating class Obama said "Still, you'll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
Last week Obama's IRS Commissioner said, It Is Absolutely Not Illegal For IRS To Target Conservatives.
Obviously Obama is acting like a third world despot who controls the media, forgetting that in the USA he doesn't. Getting caught monitoring AP's reporters phones and having the fact that his FBI monitors ALL electronic communications without a warrant pretty much confirm the existence of a tyrannical government. Now what are we going to do about it?
Obama's Hubris is now legendary. Compare the speech he gave at Ohio State with the official comments his minions at the IRS are stating.
On May 5th to Ohio State University graduating class Obama said "Still, you'll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
Last week Obama's IRS Commissioner said, It Is Absolutely Not Illegal For IRS To Target Conservatives.
Obviously Obama is acting like a third world despot who controls the media, forgetting that in the USA he doesn't. Getting caught monitoring AP's reporters phones and having the fact that his FBI monitors ALL electronic communications without a warrant pretty much confirm the existence of a tyrannical government. Now what are we going to do about it?
Friday, April 12, 2013
It's about Honesty
By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
. . . .
The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.
Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Friday, April 5, 2013
It's about Honesty
By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
. . . .
The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.
Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Minimum Wage - Another Disaster Promoted by Obama
By Tom Rhodes, 2/27/2013
Obama has proposed a $9/hr minimum wage. That's a 25% increase over the current minimum wage. What do you think will happen if he gets his way? If you think poor people will be better off your wrong. What it will do is the same thing that happens to anything that has a 25% price increase, people will buy less of it. Economists agree raising the minimum wage would have a negative effect on low skilled workers. New and entry workers, aka low skilled workers, are those who earn the minimum. They will be the hardest hit.
Consider your shopping choices; say you are purchasing a tool, like a ratchet or screwdriver. There are all different grades of tools. You can buy 3/8 drive ratchets anywhere from $8 to $30 dollars. Low end ratchets of reasonable quality that aren't complete junk cost around $16, about half the cost of a top quality name brand which costs twice as much and is twice as good. If the cost of the low end was artificially increased 25% to say $20 instead of $16, with no requirement to raise the top end tool price you would probably consider spending the money on the high end product. It only costs 50% more and has twice the quality. The same thing happens with labor. Just like the high end tool will last longer and be more reliable than the top quality tool, why not spend a bit more and get a proven worker who can produce twice as much for less than twice the cost.
Historic data and economists agree, raising the minimum wage makes it harder for low skilled and entry level workers to find and keep jobs. It will result in more unemployment; and because there are a disproportionate number of minorities, especially blacks, who lack even a high school diploma, it will disproportionately hurt minority workers.
In examining more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, University of California Irvine economist David Neumark found that approximately 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." Neumark says that the White House claim "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." His work matches with similar works in the past. A survey done in 1990 reported that 80 percent of economists agreed that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. 90 percent of members in American Economic Association agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers, this from a survey as far back as 1976. Even most introduction to economics textbooks mention that increases to minimum wage result in increases in unemployment for low skilled and entry level workers.
The result of a 25% increase in the minimum wage will be higher costs and worse service. The cold hard fact is bagging groceries isn't worth $9/hr. So there won't be as many baggers (or other low skill entry jobs), and we will all end up with slower and poorer service because we can't afford to pay more for our groceries, and a $25% increase in labor costs will affect how many employees a grocery store can have and remain profitable.
Home Depot and other retailers have installed self checkout lanes, where 1 employee monitors 4-6 check-outs. Customers ring up and bag their own goods. This is the result of high minimum wages. One $10/hr person doing what could be the work of four $5/hr people. When was the last time you were at a grocery store, WalMart, etc. that had all the checkout lanes filled with cashiers, or even had enough employees so you didn't have to wait in line. Not always, but often enough to be bothersome there are lines even when the store is slow, the reason is because of the minimum wage.
The preponderance of evidence and expert opinion's agree that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment of those in most need. Of course this is a rational, logical, objective, and historic look at the minimum wage and its effects. As such the emotional call to make things better for the poorest workers will override the facts.
Obama has proposed a $9/hr minimum wage. That's a 25% increase over the current minimum wage. What do you think will happen if he gets his way? If you think poor people will be better off your wrong. What it will do is the same thing that happens to anything that has a 25% price increase, people will buy less of it. Economists agree raising the minimum wage would have a negative effect on low skilled workers. New and entry workers, aka low skilled workers, are those who earn the minimum. They will be the hardest hit.
Consider your shopping choices; say you are purchasing a tool, like a ratchet or screwdriver. There are all different grades of tools. You can buy 3/8 drive ratchets anywhere from $8 to $30 dollars. Low end ratchets of reasonable quality that aren't complete junk cost around $16, about half the cost of a top quality name brand which costs twice as much and is twice as good. If the cost of the low end was artificially increased 25% to say $20 instead of $16, with no requirement to raise the top end tool price you would probably consider spending the money on the high end product. It only costs 50% more and has twice the quality. The same thing happens with labor. Just like the high end tool will last longer and be more reliable than the top quality tool, why not spend a bit more and get a proven worker who can produce twice as much for less than twice the cost.
Historic data and economists agree, raising the minimum wage makes it harder for low skilled and entry level workers to find and keep jobs. It will result in more unemployment; and because there are a disproportionate number of minorities, especially blacks, who lack even a high school diploma, it will disproportionately hurt minority workers.
In examining more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, University of California Irvine economist David Neumark found that approximately 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." Neumark says that the White House claim "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." His work matches with similar works in the past. A survey done in 1990 reported that 80 percent of economists agreed that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. 90 percent of members in American Economic Association agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers, this from a survey as far back as 1976. Even most introduction to economics textbooks mention that increases to minimum wage result in increases in unemployment for low skilled and entry level workers.
The result of a 25% increase in the minimum wage will be higher costs and worse service. The cold hard fact is bagging groceries isn't worth $9/hr. So there won't be as many baggers (or other low skill entry jobs), and we will all end up with slower and poorer service because we can't afford to pay more for our groceries, and a $25% increase in labor costs will affect how many employees a grocery store can have and remain profitable.
Home Depot and other retailers have installed self checkout lanes, where 1 employee monitors 4-6 check-outs. Customers ring up and bag their own goods. This is the result of high minimum wages. One $10/hr person doing what could be the work of four $5/hr people. When was the last time you were at a grocery store, WalMart, etc. that had all the checkout lanes filled with cashiers, or even had enough employees so you didn't have to wait in line. Not always, but often enough to be bothersome there are lines even when the store is slow, the reason is because of the minimum wage.
The preponderance of evidence and expert opinion's agree that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment of those in most need. Of course this is a rational, logical, objective, and historic look at the minimum wage and its effects. As such the emotional call to make things better for the poorest workers will override the facts.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Fiscal Conservatives Kicked Obama's Ass
By Tom Rhodes, 1/30/2013
Amazing the Tea Party Conservatives have won a major battle and most people don't even know it; the left claimed victory but in reality lost. I loathe John Boehner, but he is good, he kicked Obama's ass without the left even knowing it. Let's look at the facts. The debt ceiling fight was kicked out until May, but... that doesn't include the sequester fight. Boehner successfully separated borrowing from spending into two distinct issues, and to get massive spending cuts all the house has to do is . . . . NOTHING.
Boehner managed to engineer making the Bush Tax cuts permanent for all but about 1% of the people; and they have the ability to hide income and avoid the increase in taxes anyway, always have always will. In the WSJ he said, "Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad." You just gotta love the left claiming victory, for a 3.6% increase on people making double what Obama campaigned.
The new law is set up to only allow new borrowing only to meet obligations "outstanding on May 19, 2013." Because of how government spending and budgets work this effectively put a freeze on new spending. So debt limit and spending are now separated, and new spending is frozen, and automatic spending cuts are about to go into effect. This is a BIG win for fiscal conservatism, regardless of Obama demanding ever more spending.
The New York Times reported that Democrat Senator Charles E. Schumer said, "The president stared down the Republicans. They blinked," while failing to even notice that the fiscal conservatives won the spending cut battle without a fight. The automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs-defense and domestic, is still in place. because it included deep defense cuts President Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester; they ignored it. Spending cuts are automatic and will happen if the GOP has the guts to do nothing, and it looks like they aren't bluffing.
The defense cuts that will happen are significant, but don't even reduce the size of the DOD to 2007 levels, hardly an inadequate budget, and not nearly the size or scope of previous postwar drawdowns. This once again put's the Tea Party in Boehner's camp, as it looks like he is acting with integrity as a genuine conservative serious about reducing spending. He claims to have significant Republican support, even from GOP defense hawks, for letting the sequester "do its work."
I hate to say it but objectively looking at what's happening, Boehner maximized the House Republican majority to force the Democrat controlled senate and President, into making real spending cuts without them even knowing it. It's hard to believe but we may see our government controlled by a Democrat President, with a Democrat Senate be the first since before the Korean War to actually reduce government spending. Hat's off to John Boehner, engineer of a fiscal conservative coup while in a minority.
If only they don't cave. Without the 100 Tea Party members of the House there can't be a law passed to stop the automatic spending cuts. Now it's time for you to put pressure on your Tea Party Republican to allow the automatic spending cuts to happen.
Amazing the Tea Party Conservatives have won a major battle and most people don't even know it; the left claimed victory but in reality lost. I loathe John Boehner, but he is good, he kicked Obama's ass without the left even knowing it. Let's look at the facts. The debt ceiling fight was kicked out until May, but... that doesn't include the sequester fight. Boehner successfully separated borrowing from spending into two distinct issues, and to get massive spending cuts all the house has to do is . . . . NOTHING.
Boehner managed to engineer making the Bush Tax cuts permanent for all but about 1% of the people; and they have the ability to hide income and avoid the increase in taxes anyway, always have always will. In the WSJ he said, "Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad." You just gotta love the left claiming victory, for a 3.6% increase on people making double what Obama campaigned.
The new law is set up to only allow new borrowing only to meet obligations "outstanding on May 19, 2013." Because of how government spending and budgets work this effectively put a freeze on new spending. So debt limit and spending are now separated, and new spending is frozen, and automatic spending cuts are about to go into effect. This is a BIG win for fiscal conservatism, regardless of Obama demanding ever more spending.
The New York Times reported that Democrat Senator Charles E. Schumer said, "The president stared down the Republicans. They blinked," while failing to even notice that the fiscal conservatives won the spending cut battle without a fight. The automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs-defense and domestic, is still in place. because it included deep defense cuts President Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester; they ignored it. Spending cuts are automatic and will happen if the GOP has the guts to do nothing, and it looks like they aren't bluffing.
The defense cuts that will happen are significant, but don't even reduce the size of the DOD to 2007 levels, hardly an inadequate budget, and not nearly the size or scope of previous postwar drawdowns. This once again put's the Tea Party in Boehner's camp, as it looks like he is acting with integrity as a genuine conservative serious about reducing spending. He claims to have significant Republican support, even from GOP defense hawks, for letting the sequester "do its work."
I hate to say it but objectively looking at what's happening, Boehner maximized the House Republican majority to force the Democrat controlled senate and President, into making real spending cuts without them even knowing it. It's hard to believe but we may see our government controlled by a Democrat President, with a Democrat Senate be the first since before the Korean War to actually reduce government spending. Hat's off to John Boehner, engineer of a fiscal conservative coup while in a minority.
If only they don't cave. Without the 100 Tea Party members of the House there can't be a law passed to stop the automatic spending cuts. Now it's time for you to put pressure on your Tea Party Republican to allow the automatic spending cuts to happen.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Obama Says We are a Collectivist Nation
By Tom Rhodes, 1/19/2013
During Obama’s speech outlining his 23 executive orders to advance the governments incremental ban firearms he said, “we are all responsible for each other.” That is pure Collectivist tripe, this one phrase exposes his mindset, and that mindset doesn’t include individual liberty and freedom as core beliefs. The USA is not a collectivist nation. In the USA I am not by brother’s keeper. Our Declaration of Independence made this quite clear. We are free to pursue happiness, there is no guarantee that we will achieve it, nor obligation placed on others to provide it.
Because we are a free nation, I am free to charitably help anyone I want but there is no moral rational to force me to be charitable if I choose to be a selfish bastard. Being a selfish bastard may be morally wrong, but that doesn’t justify using force to take the property of a person who is selfish. That means if my neighbor has a string of bad luck he is not my responsibility. I am free to determine what if any part of my property I choose to donate to him to help him out. I’m free to put whatever conditions on my charity I choose, as in “I’ll pay your electric bill this month, but if you don’t at least try to find a job, and clean up your yard I’ll not help you again.”
If a woman decides to have children without a husband to help her raise and provide for those children, neither she nor her children are my responsibility.
Even though a corporation is doing what the government encouraged, if it fails, sustaining that corporation is not my responsibility. The loss like the profits should be the shareholders, not mine.
Contrary to the “progressive” crap you believe this country’s Founding Fathers did not guarantee success or happiness; they guaranteed the right to pursue it. They didn’t even guarantee the ability to pursuit it, only that the government doesn’t have the right to interfere with your pursuit of happiness. The sole responsibility of the government (our country) is to protect all individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equally under the law.
I am responsible to my God, my country, my family, and myself, and to nobody else. My God asks me to be generous to widows orphans and those who’ve fallen on bad times, he did not ask the government to take my money and do those things if I choose not to. My country was instituted at the consent of the governed and we choose to limit it severely, I am not responsible for its actions outside of its very limited scope. I am responsible to provide for, and protect my family. I don’t expect my neighbor to give me food, shelter, educate my kids, or fix my car without me paying for his goods and services. Nobody else is responsible for me, my actions, my well being, or my happiness; if I fail in that responsibility then I not my neighbor should suffer the consequences. Yes there is risk I will fail, but I prefer dangerous liberty over the safety of collectivist tyranny.
During Obama’s speech outlining his 23 executive orders to advance the governments incremental ban firearms he said, “we are all responsible for each other.” That is pure Collectivist tripe, this one phrase exposes his mindset, and that mindset doesn’t include individual liberty and freedom as core beliefs. The USA is not a collectivist nation. In the USA I am not by brother’s keeper. Our Declaration of Independence made this quite clear. We are free to pursue happiness, there is no guarantee that we will achieve it, nor obligation placed on others to provide it.
Because we are a free nation, I am free to charitably help anyone I want but there is no moral rational to force me to be charitable if I choose to be a selfish bastard. Being a selfish bastard may be morally wrong, but that doesn’t justify using force to take the property of a person who is selfish. That means if my neighbor has a string of bad luck he is not my responsibility. I am free to determine what if any part of my property I choose to donate to him to help him out. I’m free to put whatever conditions on my charity I choose, as in “I’ll pay your electric bill this month, but if you don’t at least try to find a job, and clean up your yard I’ll not help you again.”
If a woman decides to have children without a husband to help her raise and provide for those children, neither she nor her children are my responsibility.
Even though a corporation is doing what the government encouraged, if it fails, sustaining that corporation is not my responsibility. The loss like the profits should be the shareholders, not mine.
Contrary to the “progressive” crap you believe this country’s Founding Fathers did not guarantee success or happiness; they guaranteed the right to pursue it. They didn’t even guarantee the ability to pursuit it, only that the government doesn’t have the right to interfere with your pursuit of happiness. The sole responsibility of the government (our country) is to protect all individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equally under the law.
I am responsible to my God, my country, my family, and myself, and to nobody else. My God asks me to be generous to widows orphans and those who’ve fallen on bad times, he did not ask the government to take my money and do those things if I choose not to. My country was instituted at the consent of the governed and we choose to limit it severely, I am not responsible for its actions outside of its very limited scope. I am responsible to provide for, and protect my family. I don’t expect my neighbor to give me food, shelter, educate my kids, or fix my car without me paying for his goods and services. Nobody else is responsible for me, my actions, my well being, or my happiness; if I fail in that responsibility then I not my neighbor should suffer the consequences. Yes there is risk I will fail, but I prefer dangerous liberty over the safety of collectivist tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
