Sometimes I Hate Being Right

By Tom Rhodes, 6/25/2020

News yesterday is "Hundreds ‘ambush’ Tampa police responding to report of shots fired, 2 officers injured, chief says" This is an example of the people of Tampa seeking justice by other means because because they have no legal remedy to the police abusing their rights.

I predicted this would happen back in 2014 and talked about why, noting the Ferguson Riots were the Early Signs of Revoluion.

I noted a couple years later in 2016 that Civil War II has started, it's a slow burn but it is ramping up and will unfortunately become a shooting war before another generation is born. I rightly stated, "As long as the minions of the elite maintain their quasi-military attitude, their us vs them mentality, and their legal unaccountably, they will increasingly find themselves at war against the American people. It is a war they cannot win."

That same article concluded "No sane person would celebrate the current situation, it has been predicted, but the repeated calls to hold the police and our government accountable have gone unheeded. When the FBI boldly proclaims that yes the elite did break the law, but we won’t prosecute, and cops routinely (hundreds of times a year) shoot the unarmed public without accountability, it clearly demonstrates to the people that the rule of law is dead, and the people cannot expect justice from the government. The people can, and will, seek justice through other means when the government refuses to enforce the rule of law."

I hope I'm wrong, but I predict that Civil War II will be bloodier and more deadly than the War Between the States.

Big Cities are Doomed

Prediction: The Ruins Detroit will be the model for all large Democrat run cities.  The most productive people in those cities have and are witnessing the inability of Democrat leaders to enforce the rule of law and protect them and their property.  The most productive will move out of places where they don't have protection from looters, or criminals, and the elected leaders are unwilling to enforce the laws protecting normal people.  This will hurt the poor in cities most.

No rational person will remain where they know real criminals can and do get away with looting, arson, etc. while they are overly taxed, and fined for even the most minor code violations, when they can live under the rule of law, with protection from criminals in other parts of the country.  You will also see the 'burbs and flyover country unwilling to support urban hell holes and fight back against taxes being sent to sustain them. 

Kung Flu Sicken has taught us the large office complex in the city is not needed, good people can be dispersed and don't need to be congregated to be productive. Cheaper to pay for an employees internet connection than provide them with an office. Big cities with Democrat leadership that are pandering to criminals are doomed.  Civil War II will be between urbanites and the rest of the country.  Who thought the dystopian fantasy Escape from New York would be a model of how to deal with urban hell holes.

The Left Abandon’s Modern Civilization and Embrace Tyranny

By Tom Rhodes, 12/12/2017

Leftist’s crucifixion of their own, is further objective evidence they support tyranny and neither justice nor rule of law. The Democrats have strung up and destroyed Senator Al Franken, for gross creepy conduct without any due process whatsoever nor based on any rule of law. If Senator Al Franken’s behavior is so atrocious he should be brought up on charges, and allowed to defend himself and question his accusers before a jury. He should have been assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law following all due process.

The treatment of the Minnesota Senator is evidence that leftists do not want or support the concepts of rule of law, and innocent until proven guilty. One can conclude two things from the left’s treatment of Franken: 1) He’s a knowing sacrificial lamb, to try and pressure the GOP to destroy their own, like Moore, without due process or even credible accusers; 2) They don’t believe that men should be allowed due process in general, and those who don’t bow to the supremacy of women will be crucified. Franken’s confession of bad conduct is evidence he is either guilty of gross creepy criminal behavior or has knowingly sacrificed himself for the good of leftists gaining tyrannical control, probably both.

Some of the things that made the USA special, was the Rule of Law, Trial by Jury, and the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. The idea that nobody, is above the law and all laws apply to all people, government official or street urchin, alike. The idea that you are innocent until proven guilty before a jury of your peers and have the right to confront your accuser and bring witnesses before a verdict is rendered or punishment is extracted. Abandonment of these doctrines, is a repeated historic path to tyranny. When the elite can ignore the law, and people can be punished without due process, the law has no meaning and the people will ignore it and general lawlessness will ensue.

Al Franken is most likely a douchebag gamma who used his notoriety and power to take liberties with women who probably thought he was a creep and would have otherwise ignored him or slammed him with charges. For whatever reason those women chose to remain silent and not press charges, either for personal gain, or because although treated abhorrently the idea of having to deal with the cops and a trial and all that entails to have him punished wasn’t worth effort, or because they feared ending their career if they turned in the creep. In any case Al Franken should have been treated as innocent until proven guilty (or confessed).

In the USA it is, and has always been considered preferable, that a crook/creep/etc. go free rather than an innocent man be punished for a crime he didn’t commit. Yes that makes it harder to punish and deal with bad people, but the alternative is that innocent people be punished out of spite. Unproven allegations should not be used to judge anybody, even would be creepy despots like Al Franken.

That said, the massive amount of accusations of perverted actions by leftists in Hollywood, the MSM, and Government that are coming out of the woodwork are enough smoke that we should be looking for the fire. All credible accusations, especially against persons in power and prominence, should be vigorously and honestly investigated, but everyone accused of some malfeasance should be considered innocent until they confess or are charged, tried, and convicted in a court of law following all due process. Any other treatment or action is an abandonment of modern civilization and a return to Feudalism. Feudalism of the type where those in charge or their minions declare judgment without due process, and punish whom they want at their whim. Tyranny no matter how you look at it.

These were the actions of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, etc. who trumped up charges to murder or send to the gulag, all who they felt impeded their despotic control of the masses. More people were killed by leftists purging those who disagreed with them in the 20th century than all wars in history combined. The leftists in the USA today are doing all they can to eliminate due process and the rule of law so that they too can purge those who impede their desire to control the lives of everybody. Social media is filled with leftists memes calling for the elimination of those who don’t believe as they.

There is a significant difference between Conyers, Franken, and Moore, and how they should be treated. Conyers and Franken confessed to their sick creepy actions and their accusers are credible and accusations aren’t from scores of years ago. Moore has always claimed innocence, and his accuser confessed to fabricating evidence. Because of Conyers’ and Franken’s confessions they should be treated like the creepy perverts they are, while Moore until and unless he either confesses or is charged, tried, and convicted in a court with all due process, should be treated as innocent. Conyers, Franken, and Moore are all statist totalitarians who should not be elected and should be replaced with a good libertarian who values the constitutional limits on government, but to treat them as anything other than innocent until proven guilty is tantamount to abandoning civilization and liberty and embracing tyranny.

Civil War is Here

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2016

Our government has just confirmed that we are no longer a nation of laws. Once we were a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people." Today we are a “nation of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.”

It took less than a week for the people to respond. Not only seeing Clinton's get away with ignoring the law, but coupled with another example of the repeated problem of the police shooting innocent people and not being held accountable was demonstrated.

The results were seen in Dallas, 11 police shot, 5 dead. The people will not tolerate the continued different set of rules for the elite and their minions, than the ones they must follow or be killed.

I wrote about this coming for the past few years
(here’s one). Retaliation for the elite and their minions abandoning the rule of law was inevitable.

President Obama is aghast that the people would respond this way. Like any despot, the idea that people would retaliate against the government is inconceivable. Saying from Warsaw, “There’s no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any attack on law enforcement.” When the elites minions (cops) can and do get away with murder routinely the outcome in a free society is clear. When the rule of law no longer applies, and there is no justice through the courts, the people are left with no recourse. When law enforcement can routinely shoot unarmed people with no accountability, they not only justify, but invite attack on law enforcement.

Obama made it clear today, that the idea that the people have powerful weapons that they can use to resist the minions of the elite is the problem. Clearly the reason for the Second Amendment was so that the people, even urban blacks, would have the means to combat a tyrannical unaccountable government.

This week when the government said, Yes, Hillary broke the law, but we’re going to let her get away with it. They clearly said, the laws are to control the little people and don’t apply to your betters. Because police (minions of the elite) can and do get away with murder, and our government has declared that the elite and their minions are exempt from the law. After such a clear declaration of oligarchic despotism, violent retaliation and rebellion is all that is left.

The police created the climate by constantly and systematically protecting their own. Every cop who has seen another officer abuse the rights of a citizen, and kept their mouth shut rather than cross the thin blue line, is an accomplice not a good cop. Everyone should be held accountable for their mistakes, even cops. Especially when it costs someone their life.

The problem isn’t people having guns, it is the actions of the elites minions (cops). If we don't fix the general problem of cops literally getting away with murder, people will be sniping them all over. It is obviously a systemic problem; everyone knows nothing is going to happen to a cop who kills someone. You can’t keep shooting little girls sleeping on their couch(Aiyana Jones), and claiming you were scared as an excuse, and expect the people to tolerate it.

Last year hundreds of unarmed people were killed by the police, over 1000 people in all, but if the dead body had a pocket knife, they were classified as “armed.” The people may be stupid, but not that stupid, and can easily recognize when for every cop shot there are 30 people shot, and see the disparity noting the fact of police being trained to lie, and not notice that the Evil Minions of the Elite (cops) obfuscate, and pretend that they are in danger when they are not.

Why should the people trust the police when the law says it’s legal for cops to lie to suspects and the people, but a crime for the people to lie to cops?

As long as the minions of the elite maintain their quasi-military attitude, their us vs them mentality, and their legal unaccountability, they will increasingly find themselves at war against the American people. It is a war they cannot win.

The shooting of 11 minions of the elite in Dallas is not remotely surprising. What is surprising is the sheer number of people who won’t sympathize with the Dallas police and their families. The police consider themselves above the law, but they are not beyond the reach of an justly outraged public.

Dallas is an unnecessary tragedy. The specific officers that were shot and killed, in all likelihood did nothing to deserve the violence inflicted upon them. The way for them to avoid future attacks is to stop pretending that being scared is sufficient reason to shoot a member of the public, to erase the thin blue line and hold their fellow officers accountable.

No sane person would celebrate the current situation, it has been predicted, but the repeated calls to hold the police and our government accountable have gone unheeded. When the FBI boldly proclaims that yes the elite did break the law, but we won’t prosecute, and cops routinely (hundreds of times a year) shoot the unarmed public without accountability, it clearly demonstrates to the people that the rule of law is dead, and the people cannot expect justice from the government. The people can, and will, seek justice through other means when the government refuses to enforce the rule of law.

Buckle up people, civil war is here, and things are going to get worse before it gets better.

What Rule of Law?

Tom Rhodes, 9/8/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA Following the Path of Mexico and Greece

By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do weh have Marriage Laws?

By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trial of Adrian Wyllie

by Pete Blome, 3/10/2015

On March the 2nd, 2015, in a sparsely filled Collier County Florida Courtroom, Adrian Wyllie, the recent Libertarian candidate for Florida Governor, stood at the defense podium. He had no entourage or throng of supporters. This was his third appearance before judges on the matter of driving without a license. He refused to succumb to the invasive questioning required by the Real ID Act and have his personal information added to a national database without a warrant simply to get the privilege of a state issued driver’s license.

The details of Adrian’s civil disobedience did not impress the judge. He quickly cut short the defense presentation. The court would not listen to the violations of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions that inspired Adrian to stand alone, nor would it record the finely worded arguments of his lawyer. No one in the court would hear how the law robbed them of privacy or how the tentacles of surveillance were spreading throughout their lives. The recent years of sweat, worry, and sacrifice would come down to a few perfunctory words from a county judge.

He found him guilty. The judge said he applauded the defendant for his principles, and levied a $150 fine. Whether the judge was genuinely trying to enforce the law, victimize him, condescend to him, or simply following the path of legal least resistance, is anyone’s guess. It could have been worse. As a three time loser Adrian could easily have gone to jail.

A small matter in a small court about small people. It never would have happened at all except for Adrian’s persistent love of liberty. He thinks liberty is what makes living in the USA worthwhile. He wants others to feel as he does.

Unlike most of us, the cost of that love has been very real for him. Not having a driver’s license has limited his life in ways most of us do not even think about. He has court costs that he must pay out of pocket.
His business suffers. A simple trip to the bank becomes a convoluted task of proving one’s identity. Renting a vehicle becomes impossible.
Every drive to the store could result in trading in a comfortable night
at home for a cold cell in the county jail. Worry became a part of
his, and his family’s, way of life. He was jabbed by society in general in a dozen unseen ways every day for not having his papers. Still, he stuck to it.

To some, that was a foolish thing to do. Why suffer over this? Is defying the Real ID Act worth it? Since Adrian was active politically wouldn’t he do better moving as a free man than hobbled by self-imposed restrictions? The comfortable would say there are better ways of getting the point across without sacrifice. For them, we can live our lives, and can go home feeling secure in the knowledge we are free and have value. However, the contrast between the national myth and the reality is getting greater. What Adrian Wyllie shows is that we have the protection of the Bill of Rights, it seems, until we actually want to use them.

He still faces an uncertain future with real consequences. The legal penalties for defying the law will only become greater from this point on, and he has to decide what his next step will be. For every “Patrick Henry” that actually affects change there are dozens of unknown names that stood alone in courtrooms, like Collier County, and were consumed by the legal system no matter what protections citizens are supposed to have. Do the comfortable really know, or care, what happens to these people? Probably not. It’s not right, but that is just the way it is.

Good on you, Adrian, for going through all of this for the sake of
liberty. As Churchill once said, success is never final, and failure
never fatal, it is courage that counts.


Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and attended the trial of Adrian Wyllie 2 March.

LPF Equality Plank

By Tom Rhodes, Chairman LPF Platform Committee, 2/23/2015

Should America have special laws and programs for different groups based on race, gender or faith or should America have the same laws and rights for all Americans? Simple question and philosophically the answer is clear; America have the same laws and rights for all Americans. The sad fact is even in the leadership of the LP Americans want special rights and privileges for some men.

Our tax code is a prime example of different laws and rights for different men based on some group or other identification. Imagine tax code if it applied equally to everybody? Even maintaining the idiocy of the inequality of a progressive tax system. Imagine that everybody who made $30K paid the same taxes on that $30K. The biggest inequality is not based on how much that person earns, but on how much somebody else earns. If you make $30K and are single you’d end up paying around $5K in taxes, if you were married to somebody making $300K you’d end up paying at least $15K in taxes. Why does who you choose to be in a private relationship or not determine how you are taxed?

Should our tax law consider your sex and the voluntarily chosen profession of your spouse as a means of determining the tax you should pay? Obviously the answer should be no; if we believe in equality under the law. Now let’s get all emotional and really foul up your thinking. Should the widow of a man who died in battle overseas get a tax break? If you think so, why? Why does the widow of man who died at a construction site not deserve the same? Should the same tax break be granted to a widower? Why if it is a financial burden of a spouse dying from one means more deserving of a tax break than another means? Why should the sex of the surviving spouse grant special tax breaks? If taxes are such a heavy burden on military widows that they deserve special tax breaks, why is that same burden on others acceptable? Why shouldn’t the man whose wife dies in a car wreck not get the same tax break a military widow gets?

The answer is simple, equality under the law is a nice idea, but emotionally the reality of treating everybody equally is hard to accept. We want special people to get special privilege because it feels good, we don’t care about fair and equal. When asked “Should our tax law consider your sex and the voluntarily chosen profession of your spouse as a means of determining the tax you should pay?” rationally the answer is clear, your sex and the vocation of your spouse should not determine your taxes; but consider a woman whose husband died defending our country from terrorists, and you throw rational thinking right out the window. Emotionally you are willing to get rid of equality under the law, and grant special privileges to some people based on sex and the chosen profession of their spouse; if the sex is female, and the chosen profession is soldier. For many when it comes down to it, you don’t believe in equality.

The problem is that when we grant some special privilege for somebody special, you destroy the rule of law, and equality under the law. The unintended consequences of such thinking leads to tyranny. Always has always will. That kind of thinking eventually leads to, “that rich guy hires lots of people, we should not arrest him for that crime because those people will be out of work,” AKA “too big to fail.” Accepting and even promoting unequal treatment based on something “special” is generally exercising emotion over logic. It is however very effective, hence special interests, not equality under the law are the rule in Washington and Tallahassee.

The LPF Platform has a plank that effectively states the LPF’s position on all such laws, be they special privileges for military widows, or excessive taxes for being single, or marriage laws. It is principled, logical, and effective, and fair. This plank covers a huge variety of political and legal issues today.

LPF Platform Section I, paragraph 4: We support Equality under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Each person has the same inalienable rights. It is the States duty to protect those rights for each individual equally.

That plank is simply a modern recognition of what our forefathers stated in the Declaration of Independence, that “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted …”

The LPF Position is that government exists to protect the natural rights of all men equally, and any law that grants unequal protection or privilege or punishment to anyone is wrong. The LPF position is also clear, we need government and instituted a government purposed to protecting the natural rights of all men equally. That purpose of course inevitably lead to the War Between the States but the idea was realized and continues to be realized. Equality under the law for all men without exception. It is as we abandon that idea of equal protection under the law and the rule of law that we watch the USA creep back to tyranny that was and is normal for most of history and all of mankind.

---

Footnote:This article is written in English, therefore when referring to people of undetermined sex the generic pronouns man, men, he, him, etc. are used because it is grammatically correct to do so when the sex is unspecified. If your offended, tough, get a life. Using grammatically correct English is not sexist, no matter how you “feel” about it.

If interviewed on TV about a fire a cop might say, “We don’t know who started the fire, but he will be held responsible.” It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.

Can Cops Make an Unlawful Order?

By Tom Rhodes, 2/19/2015

Today we have LEO’s not Peace Officers, their job is no longer to protect the peace, but to enforce laws. If you don’t know the difference, stop reading and go play Farmville or whatever is popular on FB. Try to look up a legal definition of a “lawful order.” It’s not well defined, and is generally anything a cop tells you to do, legal or not. If a cop gives you an order and you don’t obey it, chances are you will be arrested, often violently, detained and thrown in jail. Doesn’t matter what that order is, or if the LEO has the authority or right to make the order.

Take something as benign as a traffic stop. By Florida statute you are required to “show” your license when a LEO requests it. The law does not require you to surrender you license to the LEO. If an officer asks to “see your license” and you put your license up against the window of your car so he can see it, you are complying with both the law and his order. The question is if the officer asks for your license and requests you hand it to him, is that a legal order?

There is no Florida statute saying you must surrender you driver license to the police if requested. But there is a law that says you must follow all lawful orders. In reality all orders a cop give to a civilian are lawful. Want proof, find any case were a cop was disciplined anywhere in Florida for giving an unlawful order.

Let’s say you show your license as the law requires but refuse to surrender it as requested. What will happen is the cop with get angry, and may be arrest you for disobeying an officer, you will be strip searched and placed in jail. At some point in the future (1-3 days), charges may be dropped and you may be freed. You were not successful even though you didn’t break any law and were within your rights, being jailed for 3 days is excessive punishment for not actually breaking any law other than pissing off a cop. So now that your rights were abused you can’t do anything meaningful. Due to qualified immunity, you will not be able to sue the law enforcement officer. You might be able to sue the department, but the officer is completely in the free and will not be held responsible in any way. Even the department won’t be held responsible because their funding won’t be reduced, instead the municipality that runs the police department will use taxpayer money to pay you.

In reality no order given by a law enforcement officer is ever considered unlawful. No person has ever disobeyed an unlawful order, and had justice prevail. Nowhere in Florida has an officer ever been held accountable for “giving an unlawful order.”

The only way for there to have never been an officer held accountable for “giving an unlawful order,” is either that no order by an LEO is unlawful, or no LEO has ever given an unlawful order. The sad fact is that, today, in Florida, you have no legal right to not obey any order a cop gives you, whether the LEO has been granted that power by law or not. There is no such thing as an unlawful order by an LEO. That is a problem, and it is a problem or government doesn’t even want you to know, much less talk about.

Our Culture Hides Rape

By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2014

The latest finding from the CDC indicate that women rape men as often as men rape women. The so called “rape culture” is not a one way street. Feminism has dramatically skewed the rhetoric and is trivializing the heinous crime of rape.

I would never have thought this reasonable and rational article would have come from Time Magazine but it did. In an article titled CDC Rape Numbers are Misleading, Time notes the following:

For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist "rape denial." However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, "rape culture" is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were "made to penetrate" another person - usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as "other sexual violence."

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication - at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in

2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape - and why shouldn't it be? - then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

Today’s feminist culture is trying to tell us that a girl getting drunk clubbing and regretting waking up, with a hangover, at a strange guy’s place, tired, naked and sore from a wild drunken tryst is just as much a rape as being drug off the street into a van, held down and forcibly penetrated and abused. The idea is that women are not responsible if they do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. Rather taking responsibility for their sobriety and actions, feminism dictates that the mere fact that a woman regrets the outcome of her actions is a valid reason for labeling the idiocy men and women do when drunk or high as some criminal crime against women. The female imperative of our feminized culture, concludes that that men being "made to penetrate" - either by physical force or due to intoxication, is not the same thing. If women want equality, they why do they not note and condemn the fact that women are just as guilty of raping men instead of trying to claim our society is misogynistic? Or note that when it comes to rape, by the definition they impose, society is equal?

The Libertarian Party of Florida’s Platform simple states: We support Equality Under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Clearly feminism today is not compatible with the being a Libertarian. Why do Feminists have a problem with Equality Under the Law? Their influence has pushed our government to abandon equality under the law. Why do they, and our government want laws to apply differently to men than women? Why do they and our government count crimes differently if committed by a woman than a man? Why do they and our government want the burden of proof to be different based on the sex of the accuser and/or victim?

The Time article ends in a refreshing use of rational logic and reason, rightly concluding “studies of sexual violence should use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men - and women - behaving badly.”

Libertarianism, Religion, and the DH

By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2014

Libertarians are a tolerant lot, except when it comes to religion. For some reason many, not all, and not even a majority, but many, are under the delusion that expressing and practicing and having your political actions influenced by any religion other than atheism is somehow not libertarian. Many libertarians actually support “Freedom From Religion.”

We really need to give everybody some Big-Boy pants, and teach the whiners to learn to focus their efforts on something productive. The anti-religion crowd needs to go back and read the constitution, and re-read, over and over again, the First Amendment. The First amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and prohibits the government from establishing a religion. It does not protect atheists from exposure to other religion. In fact any elected official, or government official, or employee, so long as they are not forcing others to believe as they do have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and express religious viewpoints even at government events.

At some point those whose religion is atheism, atheists, must come to an understanding that they must abide by the same rules they attempt to use to control others. Atheism is a religion. A Religion is defined as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheism like Christianity, Islam, or the belief in the Greek Gods of Old, or the Norse God Oden, has a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife. It’s not like baseball and having the righteous belief that the designated hitter is an abomination before all that is true, good, and honorable in baseball (a belief all morally righteous, intelligent, and fair thinking people share). Because atheism has a set of generally agreed upon beliefs by a number of persons concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife it must rationally be considered a religion or sect of some kind.

The right to say there is no god or supernatural has no precedence nor priority over the right to say there is only one God, or many gods. Even among elected or government employed people. Unless they force you to believe as they do, or make your belief a basis of how you are treated under the law, rules, regulations, etc. Everybody is free to express their religion, even atheists, as they see fit. It is only when religion is used to determine how a law, rule, regulation, or something the government does, is there a problem.

Our country is being torn apart and destroyed by the continuous broadening of the idea and scope of “infringement” on the rights of others. Catering to atheists is destroying the country. We need to return to the American philosophy of "live and let live." Endowing hypersensitive crybabies with the power to censor those who don’t share their religion is upsetting the equilibrium that liberty and justice for all created, and has proven to work extremely well for an long time.

The Libertarian Party of Florida is not a religion, it has no specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife. The basic beliefs of the LPF are irrelevant to the existence or not of a divine being. Like all political parties the LP is an organization that exists to gain political power. The LP welcome people of any and all beliefs so long as you do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or use of fraud to achieve social or political goals.

Now if you believe that there should be different rules, laws, regulations, or courts for people of different religions you clearly don’t share the beliefs and goals of the LP and should consider another political party. If you’re an atheist who wants to eliminate religious expression in public, eliminate evangelism, censor or silence those who don’t share your beliefs, and are willing to institute laws and use the force of government to be “free from religion” you probably shouldn’t be in the LP. You do not have a right to be free from exposure to other people’s religions. If you believe government schools should be able to censor graduation speeches so that valedictorians don’t “offend” people with their “Ode to Oden” or praise for Christ, for getting them through high school, you probably don’t belong in the LP, that is clearly the exercise of rights the government is restrained from infringing upon.

The LPF exists to gain political power in order to establish a society based on personal liberty and responsibility—a society in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. The LPF believes the most desirable method of organizing society is the natural order that arises when the unalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty and property ownership are respected and protected. If your religion doesn’t share that belief you probably shouldn’t be in the LPF. The LPF believes that people have the right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and pursue happiness in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly or fraudulently interfere with the equal rights of others. Libertarians welcome the peace, prosperity, and diversity that freedom brings.

__________________________

Oh on a side note, if you believe the DH is a good rule, you are clearly a statist pig who has disavowed even pretense of holding libertarian beliefs, hate equality under the rules, and trust in evil egalitarianism. The idea that because a pitcher is notoriously bad at hitting the ball, they deserve to be exempt from the rules other players must abide; allowing some other person to play in their place is clearly unequal treatment that offers special treatment for some players and not others. The DH is like having somebody else take the math part of your ACT, because your good in english but bad in math.The DH is almost as evil as water cooling on a Harley. The DH is an abomination to baseball, libertarianism, freedom, truth, the American Way, and all that is good and right in the world. Society tolerating the DH is the canary in the bird cage, showing we are headed to totalitarianism. Although religion should not be a litmus test against being in the LPF, maybe we should add a platform plank to disqualify all people who believe in the DH not only from the LPF but from the voter rolls as well.

Of course my opinion on baseball might be a tad extreme, even for Libertarians, but unlike politics, baseball is important.

Fraud Legal, Rule of Law Dead.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

For centuries fraud has been illegal. The fundamental English Common law pretty much dictated that if you sell somebody something, and then deliver something other than what you said you sold, you are guilty of fraud. If I tell you I’ll sell you a 5 lb sack of potatoes for $3 dollars, and you then take the clearly labeled 5 pound sack of potatoes and later find out it had 5 lbs of rocks you have a clear case of fraud, and could win compensation for the fraud in court. Simple enough principle and everybody agrees advertising and selling potatoes and delivering rocks is fraudulent and illegal and actionable.

Unless of court you’re a bank. The rule of law no longer applies to banks. It is now legal for banks to falsely represent their products to consumers. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) won dismissal of a suit over $450 million in residential mortgage-backed securities, with a New York judge saying that the firms that bought the bonds should have done more research beforehand.

State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos dismissed the claims against Goldman Sachs today, saying the investors only reviewed data presented in offering documents for the securities and never asked to review files for the underlying loans.

“The true nature of the risk being assumed could, admittedly, have been ascertained from reviewing these loan files and plaintiffs never asked for them,” Ramos wrote.

In no uncertain terms judges have ruled that it is perfectly legal to present someone with a fraudulent document claiming to be selling them a pig in the poke, if you don’t actually look in the crate to see that there is a dead cat, and not a live pig in there, it's your fault.

Singlehandedly Judge Ramos has destroyed the loan security market. You are now responsible for checking every single loan that Is part of a mortgage security to ascertain the risk. The bank offering the security is allowed to legally present you with a fraudulent document that doesn’t reflect the actual risks of the loans making up such securities.

Imagine if food companies could legally tell you that the ground beef you were buying was USDA certified and inspected, and sell you rotten mutton instead. If you didn’t check the actual inspection certificate for that lot and compare it to USDA documents, you couldn’t sue for fraud.

Imagine ordering a computer from Amazon online, you purchase a unit advertised to have a Pentium i7 processor and 8GB of ram, and a 2TB hard drive, when you open the box you get an 4.77Mhz XT with an 8088 processor, a single floppy and 256K of ram. Then you find out you have no legal recourse, can’t return it, and can’t sue you didn’t verify that the components in the box where what was promised. That’s the new standard for Banking.

If you have an IRA, or retirement fund that has any money in financial securities, you can be legally fleeced because the banks have no legal requirement to be honest in their holdings, and if you or your broker doesn’t verify the validity of all the details in any prospectus provided independently, you have no recourse.

Game over people, banks are exempt from the law, just like congress. We no longer live in a nation of laws, but an oligarchy ruled by money changers and political hacks. Now that you cannot get justice from the government, the result will be bad. Real bad. To have justice you will be forced to seek it yourself. Just as if you purchase an ounce of pot and get an ounce of oregano, you can’t go to police. Now if you get a bad prospectus and the bank takes your life savings, you can’t go to the FCC or police. So like drug dealers and users, if ripped off you have two choices, accept being ripped off and write off your loses or seek justice on your own. Drug dealers often die violently because they ripped somebody off. Bankers fraudulently take too many people’s money and the courts and government don’t let them get away with it, and they too might be treated like a drug dealer selling oregano as pot. When enough people lose their life savings and their homes because bankers are legally allowed to present fraudulent documents, and those people have no recourse, you will see violent repercussions. Justice in the USA is looking more and more like the third world; justice depends on who you know and your political status not the rule of law.

Democracy in America is Dead.

by Tom Rhodes, 4/24/2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Reid’s Hypocrisy

By Tom Rhodes, 4/16/2014

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

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

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

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

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

What Difference Does it Make

By Tom Rhodes, 2/17/2014

By now Hillary’s infamous “What difference does it make!” line has been used and abused about a zillion times in the blogosphere and social networks. The problem is honesty and the rule of law make more of a difference than Hillary or Obama or progressives in general are willing to admit.

Consider Obamacare and what is fully acknowledged as one of the biggest lies in political history “if you liked your health care, you could keep it.” The problem isn’t that its foundational premise lie, liberals didn’t even blink when they found out it was a lie, much less be offended by the lie. The problem is that liberals, progressives, and statists of all sorts are offended that the lie was pointed out, exposed, and talked about.

They and all the American people now know that Obama purposefully lied in order that the government could gain control of 1/5^th of the American economy. The reason why Pelosi fought so hard to have the Democrat controlled House pass the law to see what was in it, why Obama reneged on his multiple transparency promises (specifically health care legislation), is that power not health care, power not liberty, power not security, are the goal. Their hubris at the idea that “we the people” should even question their promises, much less actions, show utter contempt for the average American.

America is different for the first couple centuries, even if we lost an election we knew we lost fair and square, and that were at least heard. We knew and believed in the rule of law and that all sides have a fair chance at being heard and then voting for what we believe, and win or lose accepted the results. But things have changed. “What difference it makes” is that rather than respect the limits we place on government as leaders in the past did, today’s liberals are personified by Obama, who routinely reject Checks and Balances, and the limits placed by “We the People.” What is plain is that even though 70% of us want to stop deficit spending we are ignored. What’s plain is that even though our losses
aren’t fair. And rather than listen to us we are told “What difference does it make”. Or when pointing out that the action is unconstitutional are told “Are You Kidding”.

We aren’t being listened too, the rules are bent or broken or ignored, that crucial legitimacy is gone. And then there are no rules to respect. The blatant destruction of our Constitution’s boundaries, is leading to actions our leaders won’t acknowledge. America is arming itself, the ammo shortages in the news aren’t manufactured, they are real, not because of some government plot but because of simple supply and demand. No longer is having a box or two of ammo “enough,” people routinely hoard 20+ boxes for each weapon they own, “just in case.”

Why such distrust of government? Let’s face were Americans and trusting Uncle Same has never been a strong point. But today we plainly see the rule of law is dead. The government cannot be trusted in any endeavor to do as it promises. Both parties work for nothing more than power. We see our police being issued tanks and battle vehicles, WTF. We see massive amounts of ammunition ordered and purchased by government agencies that we didn’t even know had guns. That ammo is hollow-point and although effective, its use violates the Geneva Convention so can’t be used by our military or against a foreign army so the government obviously fears domestic not foreign attack.

The experiment in freedom that is the USA is ending. The ruling elite have for over two centuries trying to put the genie back in the bottle. The ruling elite show open contempt for the average person, who they don’t believe can be trusted with the freedom to decide what to eat, where to live, what car to drive, what to teach their children. They monitor the travel of every citizen they can, monitor their phones and emails, totally disregarding the constitution limits on unreasonable searches. Secret courts, oaths of silence, and the like are the work of today’s US government. We The People forming a government with limited powers instituted to protect the right of mere citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness was and is a slap in the fact to the ruling elite. So they ignore the Constitution.

To Hillary, Obama, Reid, Boehner, Crist, “the difference it makes” is that once We the People see you are ignoring the restrictions on the limited power we’ve given you, We will ignore you, your laws, and rules. Connecticut is not exactly a bastion of libertarianism, but . . . massive numbers of good law abiding citizens did ignore the law and refused to register their “assault weapons”; what is Connecticut going to do with 100,000+ new felons? Want some fun, google “Shoot Shovel and Shut-up.” Who anymore thinks cheating on your income taxes is morally wrong? Just try to get a conviction on pot possession in Philadelphia, We the People simply refuse to convict. Obamacare, We the People see that congress doesn’t have to abide by it, corporations don’t have to abide by it so We the People are ignoring it and not signing up.

Modern Western Civilization depended on the “rule of law” and on “equality under the law.” In as much as our ruling elite now blatantly ignore both, so too are We the People ignoring or actively disobeying the “law” as without the both the “rule of law” and on “equality under the law” laws are just dictates of a tyrannically few, and We the People have proven repeatedly that we will not suffer tyranny. It would be nice if our republic could remain united, but tyranny from ruling elite who refuse to live within their means and within the restrictions of power granted to them byWe the People, will spell the death of our republic and maybe Western Civilization. That is the difference.

Rule of Law / Worldview

Rule of Law / Worldview
By Tom Rhodes, 11/23/2013

You have a weltanschauung, or worldview. It is your comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe. For culture and societies to prosper and flourish they must share a worldview, when people have drastically different weltanschauung there is conflict, often violent. Obama wanted “Change” for America, the problem is he doesn’t share the same weltanschauung as the vast majority of society. America is undergoing drastic changes because we no longer share a common world view. Obama’s first and foremost attack is on a fundamental of our culture to force acceptance of his worldview on a society which was founded on and rejected, that being the rule of law.

Truth is a stumbling block to those who do not want to be ruled by law. That’s why Obama infamously noted that the problem with being president was the constitution keeps getting in the way of “getting things done.” The simple observable objective truth that you cannot ignore is that you CANNOT have the rule of law and majority rule at the same time.

This blog has extensive articles on the Rule of Law. It’s a worldview that most liberals and big government statists now reject. It’s origins are Biblical, as in Judeo- Christian. Read here for more on that subject

Since becoming president, Obama has routinely rejected the rule of law, granting exemptions, special favors, and instead ruling by divine fiat just as kings of old. The reason is he has a Pagan not Christian world view.

A modern pagan generally calls themselves atheists, although some revere Gaia, but in general it’s based on rejecting the Judeo-Christian God. Such a world view is statist not liberal nor conservative:

The state is divine

State authority is unlimited

Which leads to state worship

Resulting in tyranny

Based on evolution

A Biblical worldview, is not statist nor liberal nor conservative, in general it results in what today is know as libertarian:

The state is divinely ordained (Exodus 18:21)

State authority is limited

Which leads to patriotism

Which results in a republic (Article 4, United States Constitution)

Based on creation

America is a republic not a democracy. 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 is dead.

If you doubt the Christian foundations for the rule of law, read this
The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny, before you comment. Whether my fellow Libertarians accept it or not, libertarian values are rooted in Christianity, not secularism.

Today statists worship the state as protector, provider, and ruler. A worldview that is destroying America. Until and unless the voters and our culture adopt a world view that doesn’t assume that rulers are above the law, including our police, and we revert to embracing the radical idea that NOBODY is above the law, we are destined to go the way or Rome. From the Knockout game to Too Big To fail, each end of the socioeconomic spectrum, our society has rejected the rule of law. That is why the LP only gets a small percentage of the vote. If libertarians were elected, and insisted on the rule of law, the treatment of “troubled teens” or congressmen when breaking the same law would be the same.

Franklin famously said our form of governmet was a Republic, "If we could keep it."

So what do you want Rule of Law or rule of the majority, you can't have both.

“Libertarian Islamist” an Oxymoron

By Tom Rhodes, 7/29/2013

The foundational principles of libertarian philosophy include the Non Aggression Principle, Equality under the law, and the Rule of Law. You cannot honestly say you’re a Libertarian if you don’t believe that all laws should apply to everybody equally, and that no individual or group is above the law. Believing that any individual or group should have different laws or be treated differently under the law is the path to tyranny and not compatible with libertarianism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) arguably the image and positions of Islamists in America. The official position they have taken, as Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a rally is that Islam that members of the faith should not be bound by American law.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land” ~ Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch

At least he is open and honest about the Islamic Principles. They do not believe in the Rule of Law. The rally was held in Austin as part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.

There is currently a push by some “libertarian” Islamists, to gain acceptance of Islamists in the LP. The general goal is to label and smear those doesn’t say that Islamism is libertarian and embrace Islamists in the LP is bigots. While ignoring debate about principles.

If the LP is the party of principle, it cannot and must not accept people who proclaim that belonging to any group puts them above the law of the land. Not only does this concept violate the Rule of Law, it violates the NAP, it proposes to use the force of government to silence opinions and ideas they don't like and to grant them special privileges over others.

The concept our government was created is that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” To be a good Muslim you must reject this notion. Islamists belief system and holy writ claim that those who don’t believe as they believe are sub-human, and must pay for the privilege of not being Muslim, or become enslaved, or be put to death. Until that basic premise is rejected by Islam, it is not compatible with modern western civilization, much less libertarian principles or the LP.

As long as Islamists reject the rule of law, and want different rules for some people than others, and promote group ideology over individual rights they are not compatible with libertarian philosophy, nor are they compatible with the LP. This isn’t to say if you’re a Muslim you can’t be a member of the LP or can’t be libertarian, but it is to say if you reject the Rule of Law and want different laws or courts for Muslims than the rest of America, you have rejected the LP and its principles. If you don’t openly and publicly reject the idea that “practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” you don’t have a place in the LP.

Why Dealing With Cops is Frustrating

By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2013

YouTube is full of videos of cops doing stupid stuff. Not just abusive, but just plain stupid. Clearly the volume of video available demonstrating that LEO's clearly don't know the law and making obviously erroneous statements is evidence that at best police officers are of average intelligence. Consider the volume and complexity of modern law, it is not fair to expect these guys to know it or understand it. So be careful when dealing with LEO and give them a break, they just don't have the IQ to understand the constitution and its ramifications. It's not their fault; you see Federal Courts have validated policies that exclude the hiring of smart people to be cops.

The ruling elite don't want smart cops who know and understand the Constitution, they only want and hire people of average intelligence who will do what they are told' smart thinking people need not apply.

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

...

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

The massive volume of video evidence at YouTube alone validates the idea that at few cops are capable of understanding the abstract Constitutional aspects of their job. Reading this article probably indicates that you are of above average IQ, it's overtly libertarian and not widely advertised, thus to find this article you are probably looking for news and commentary that is not reduced to the lowest common denominator. So for you the above average intellect I offer some advice if you have to deal with LEO's.

Try to focus on the practical aspects of the situation so that they can follow. Don't offer any additional information, be kind and polite and remember you are probably dealing with a person who has at best average intelligence.

When you are talking with cops remain calm and plan on having to teach them, but remember to speak slowly and try not to get perturbed at having to repeat yourself a lot. When you ask "am I being detained?" and they don't answer but instead ask you a question, it's probably because they didn't understand why you or what you asked. Substituting "am I free to go?" this reduces the vocabulary to single syllables which are easier for them to understand. Be polite and patient it's not their fault they were genetically screened for no more than average intelligence. Ask again and again until they answer, but be patient and kind.

Understand that they think because they "passed" the test to become a law enforcement officer, that they believe they are smarter than those who didn't take or didn't pass the test; they probably haven't considered the fact that smart people "fail" the test. Knowing this it's incumbent upon you to consider the ramifications of making statements/questions like, "I do not consent to a search officer; can you articulate specific probable cause of a specific crime and exactly what items you are looking for?" This is long sentence with many polysyllabic words, so the probability is that the abstract ramifications articulated will produce intellectual and emotional conundrums that the LEO may not be able to ameliorate into their modest intellect and thus elicit a negative emotional response. Although exercising your rights may be legal and principled, frustrating people who have firearms and are legally immune from most prosecution if they use them may not be the wisest course of action.

As a principled libertarian exercising your rights, you expect that relative simplicity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which are clearly limiting government and not you, to be understood by law enforcement. That is not the case; the courts have ruled that there is a "rational basis" to purposely selected LEO without high IQ, thus insuring that cops have a propensity of accepting and enforcing the edicts of the ruling elite not critical thinking. This is why it is often frustrating exercising your rights with today's law enforcement community, they were not selected for their ability to think.

US Court Rules Discrimination is Legal

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2013

US federal courts have ruled that if you can show a "rational basis" for discrimination against persons with a common genetic trait, that such discrimination is legal. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision claims it's reasonable to not hire men of above average IQ in order to reduce the expense of job turnover. Because just like skin color, eye color, height, sex, etc. no individual has control over their genetic makeup, which includes IQ, the court has effectively said that it's ok to not hire somebody if there is a "rational basis" that such genetic variance can lead to increased job turnover. This is an interesting new standard which if applied equally, effectively legalizes descrimination.

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

"This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class," Jordan said today from his Waterford home. "I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had "shown a rational basis for the policy." In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Based on this court precedent it is rational to consider persons common a genetic traits in hiring as a means to reduce job turn over. This begs some interesting but politically incorrect questions.

Does this court ruling overturn the court rulings that force cities to dumb down civil service tests for firefighters etc. when not enough minorities pass the test? If getting too high a grade is "a rational basis" to exclude somebody from the job pool, why isn't too low a grade?

Does this mean that because there is a statistical increase in the chances that persons with a common genetic trait, like skin color, being imprisoned (which puts a damper on going to work), that to avoid job turnover it's rationale not to hire young black men?

Does this mean that because there is a statistical increase in the chances that persons with a common genetic trait, like sex, leads to increase in leaving a job to raise children that that to avoid job turnover it's rationale not to hire women of child bearing age?

Lucky for us that the rule of law is dead in the USA, if the government actually enforced the rule of law equality for everybody then sexism, racism, ageism, etc. are now all legal. Because our nation has abandoned the rule of law you don't have to worry, it only applies to Politically Correct discrimination. The way our government works, the law will be applied to allow discrimination against smart white Judeo/Christian men.