Thanksgiving - Celebrating Private Property's Triumph Over Collectivism

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Fringe Whackjob

by Tom Rhodes, 2/15/2019

Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a fringe Whackjob, or is she just bringing the Democrat party out of the closet?

Clearly the Democrat party has abandoned liberalism for authoritarian principles. They clearly recognize that they cannot reach their Utopian dreams if they continue to embrace liberal principles. The Democrats are now an authoritarian socialist party. There is no way that the Democrat party can claim to be liberal.

Liberals used to be defined as people who believed in Liberalism, which is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, where the governments purpose is to insure and protect individual rights and civil liberties of all equally, guaranteeing the rule of law, and equality under the law.

Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.

The Democrats have and are rejecting the will of the people, they commonly refer to the masses as “flyover country,” deplorables, etc. The current Democrat positions:

Reject Religious Liberty

Legalize Infanticide

End the Second Amendment and Your Right to Self Defense

End Free Speech through “hate speech” laws

Anti-Semitism

End Due Process

Different rules for Elite than Masses

Green New Deal(GND)

Force Home Reconstruction

Outlaw 99% of Private Vehicles

Eliminate Nuclear Energy

Ban Affordable Energy

End most Air Travel

Forced Government Healthcare

Nationalize Banks

End right to spend money on speech

Replace Republic of USA with Democracy

Abolish Electoral College

Establish Federal Control of heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation

Ban Meat

Provide Income to those Unwilling to Work
The GND is supposedly about Climate Change, but most of the proposed ideas in the GND have nothing to to do with Climate Change, the proposal is instead an authoritarian wish list to end the Constitution.

None of the current policies and objectives of the Democrat party are liberal. They are even openly racist calling for segregation on our college campuses. I cannot find anywhere Democrats want to protect or increase individual liberty, economic freedom, or civil rights. Clearly today’s Democrats want to eliminate the Bill of Rights. Other than the Third Amendment all of the Bill of Rights is getting in the way of how the Democrats want the power to control all aspects of how all Americans life. They are openly calling to end our Constitutional Republic and replace it with some oligarchy not bound by any of the restrictions that, We The People, placed on them. Democrats clearly chafe at the idea that the mere masses, don’t accept their superiority, and that the will of the people should be ignored because the ruling elites know best how everybody should live. The Democrats are clearly Authoritarian.

Ocasio-Cortez Occasional-Cortex is not a fringe fruitcake of the Democrat party, she and all those who support the GND, are the reality of what the Democrats believe. It is not liberal, or conservative, but leftist authoritarianism. Occasional-Cortex in a recent interview came out and said that to enact the GND there would necessarily be some totalitarian actions by government.

Psychology Today lists What You Can Expect From an Authoritarian. Clearly the actions and attitude of today’s Democrat party reject liberalism and embrace all the top 10 traits of Authoritarians:

Hatred.

Punishment and Cruelty.

Violence, Aggression, and Assaultive Behavior.

Threats and Scare Tactics.

Quixotic, Unclear Rules.

Paranoia and Enemies’ Lists.

Truth Held as Enemy.

Shaming Efforts, Derision, and Ridicule.

Rigidity and Obsession with Control.

Intrusiveness.

Democrats Can't Tell Themselves Apart from Socialists

by Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

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

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

And let’s not forget:

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

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

Statists Pervert the Concept – Pay it Forward

By Tom Rhodes, 4/17/2014

Pay if Forward, an OK movie if you like emotional chick flicks, but it is an old and venerated charitable concept that is grounded on voluntarily helping others and asking them to voluntarily do the same when they can. Pay it forward was used as a key plot element in the denouement of a Comedy play by Menander, Dyskolos, a prizewinning play in ancient Athens in 317 BC. The concept was rediscovered and described by Benjamin Franklin, who in a letter to Benjamin Webb in 1784, said, “I do not pretend to give such a deed; I only lend it to you. When you [...] meet with another honest Man in similar Distress, you must pay me by lending this Sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the Debt by a like operation, when he shall be able, and shall meet with another opportunity. I hope it may thus go thro' many hands, before it meets with a Knave that will stop its Progress. This is a trick of mine for doing a deal of good with a little money.”

Pay it forward is an expression for describing the beneficiary of a good deed repaying it to others instead of to the original benefactor. The concept is old, but the phrase may have been coined by Lily Hardy Hammond in her 1916 book In the Garden of Delight.

On my way into work this morning listening to Morning Edition on NPR, I heard a story titled “Pay It Forward Proposal Could Help Students Afford College” by Leah Binkovitz. The story on their web page is described as a “new idea is making the rounds in education circles. Under the plan, states would allow students to go to college for free then they would pay back a percentage of their salaries after they graduate.”

This is a sick perversion of the old noble concept of Pay it forward. As proposed the state pays for students go to college, and after they graduate pay back to the state a percentage of their income based on their salary. The result will be students who get STEM degrees and garner high paying jobs will actually subsidize those who get “woman’s studies” degrees and end up working as bartenders, waitresses, and cab drivers. This program is not Pay it forward, this is “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. This is a typical ploy of socialists who since the proven failure of Marxist ideology, attempt to cover their Marxist programs as anything other than socialism.

The concept of Paying if Forward is based voluntary charity, and hoping that a good deed will propagate itself and improve not only the life of the person you helped but nurture the idea and generosity of that person. This program is not based on the hope that a good deed will be propagated, accepting the risk that some Knave may stop its progress. The program described on NPR and proposed in the state of Michigan is not a “new idea.” It is based on redistribution of wealth without risk. It is simply a socialist system for higher education.

This program disguises itself as “charity” but it’ not. If it were truly a version of Paying if Forward, there would be no strings attached, a State or some foundation would simply say, “We believe in you, and are going to pay for your degree, all we ask is when you succeed you support us with as much as you can until you feel your debt has been paid so we can continue to Paying if Forward.” The plan proposed is not paying it forward, it is another way for statists and liberals to try and feel good about using the force of government to redistribute wealth, rather than be charitable themselves.

Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny

By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2013

Those who embrace liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms suffer from the delusion that the ruling elite know better how every person should live. This is a fantasy or more rationally a logical fallacy of category error. They actually believe that the state "loves" you and should be the parent, god, tribal elder, city council, uncle, teacher, and provider for every person in society. What's worse is they believe that the state can be all things to all people. They believe that because some people don't make the life choices that they think are best, the state should have the authority to force people to do what's "right" for their own good. C.S. Lewis described this phenomenon.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis

For your own good liberals want to:

Control where you go to school

Regulate your work

Regulate your play

Control what doctor you can see

Control what treatments your doctor can prescribe

Decide when you retire

Decide how much money you can keep when you retire

Decide how you must save and invest for retirement

Decide if when you've made enough money

Decide what ideas can be taught in school

Decide what religious beliefs you must tolerate

Decide what religious beliefs you must reject

Control Charities

Control your choice of transportation

Control you where you live

Dictate what you can and can't eat

For the state to provide for the people, and to protect the people, and to control people from making bad choices takes money. The reality of TANSTAAFL means that the state must have massive amounts of money. They embrace the idea that has served foundational for the last centuries most brutal regimes; the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.

They believe they know what's best for you and know how other people should life. The issue isn't that they live how they want to live, they want to force everybody to live how they want to live.

They like gay marriage therefore everyone must be forced to like gay marriage.

They hate guns, therefore nobody should be allowed to own guns.

They like Sesame Street, therefore everybody should pay for Sesame Street.

They prefer vertical urban life styles therefore in the name of "sustainability" everybody should be forced to live in more urban areas.

They hate the rich, therefore nobody should be rich.

They like NPR, therefore everybody should pay for NPR.

They like abortion, therefore everybody should pay for their abortions.

The problem with leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever left leaning -ists you want to name, they firmly believe that because what they want is good, you shouldn't have the choice not do what they believe is good. They believe that if you don't believe like them then you are either too stupid to understand the "goodness" of their beliefs or you are evil. In either case, your stupidity or evil nature justifies them forcing you to do as they believe "for your own good" or "for the good of society." They literally hunger to control those who they believe are evil, or not smart enough to understand the goodness of their beliefs.

Because liberals with all their hart want what's best for everybody, want nobody to ever suffer, and have the best of intentions, they hate the free market. The free market allows people to choose what they want, not what progressives think is best for them. Emotionally at a deep caring and loving level, they know that "if only" people would do as they think is right everybody would be better. Liberal thinking works on some magical "utopian" level, devoid of reality or understanding of human nature. They actually believe that because some people are too stupid or are evil they don't always make "good" choices, therefore they, the ruling elite, who know better how everybody should live, should have the authority to force "good" choices on everybody.

Liberals also believe that if somebody makes a mistake, to avoid acute suffering that everybody should pay for that mistake that way the consequences of a mistake are shared and nobody suffers too much. If an individual chooses not to make the best of the education offered, and chooses to have children without a means of support, rather than see that person or the children suffer, everybody should have to pay to house, feed, clothe, and care for them. If a city, raises its taxes to a point most businesses, and virtually all of the middle and upper class of people move to less onerous parts of the country, while giving huge extensive pay and retirement packages to city workers, resulting in bankruptcy, like Detroit, rather than the people of that city and its creditors suffering the consequences of those mistakes in leadership, liberals believe EVERYBODY must pay to bail them out. If a state does the same thing and goes billions into debt, and creates an environment where there are more people on welfare than working, like California, liberals believe that rather than let the people of California suffer the consequences of their elected leaders mistakes, the people of Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and all the other states where the people have forced state governments to have balanced budgets must help pay for California, Illinois, and New York's mistakes.

Liberalism, and the oppressive tyranny it imposes forces one-size-fits-all actions in a world where the people have more and more choices every day. Let's face it, Amazon.com completes more transactions with a vaster variety of products every minute, than the recently upgraded and "fixed" one-size-fits-all Healthcare.gov has ever been able to complete in a day. Healthcare.gov is a massive mistake created for "your own good" that everybody must pay for. It is tyranny in action for your own good.

The very idea that because some people if given the freedom to make life choices might not make the wisest choices, the state should have the authority to force people to accept limits on those choices is the underlying premise of modern liberals. Once accepting that premise, they extrapolate that to put the responsibility for the consequences on the state, and as such it has the authority to force those who exercise what freedom it allows profitably to pay for the unwise life choices of everyone else. Liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms are a non-functional, authoritative, overbearing philosophy that depends on tyranny to implement and is completely out of step with the modern world and the very idea of liberty.

Liberal ideas cannot be implemented without force, as such most are immoral. Simply put Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny

Boomers the Grasshopper Generation

By Tom Rhodes, 6/13/2013

The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, a Baby-Boomer himself said that Boomers are a “fortunate generation” who have enjoyed dramatic improvements in living standards but are now “absorbing” more than their fair share of taxpayers’ money. Duh! The entire Social Security Ponzi scheme is based on the idea that those who fail to save for retirement through either bad luck or poor life choices should not suffer the consequences of bad luck and poor life choices, thus others should be forced to support them. A backwards interpretation of Aesop's fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper.

There is a biblical/libertarian doctrine that is emotionally bothersome to most Baby-Boomers. The idea can be seen in Aesop's fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper. The wisdom of this is lost because as a society we’ve adopted the idea that just because the Grasshopper made poor life choices doesn’t mean he should suffer, the Ant is so rich he can afford to feed the Grasshopper. In fact it isn’t “fair” that the Ant has massive food supplies while the Grasshopper has none. This is an emotional response to seeing suffering, Baby-Boomers would rather sacrifice their children’s and grandchildren’s property rights then suffer their failure to save for their “golden years.”

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development “The proportion of elderly in the population is around 15% across the OECD and on average they receive 40% of all public social spending. In Japan and Italy, where senior citizens make up about 20% of the population, public social spending on the elderly is about 60% of the total.”

OK Baby-Boomers, it’s time to let you live with the changes to the world you made. Why should our children and grand children live in debt and have to pay huge sums in taxes to allow you to continue to live beyond your means? Baby-Boomers have the wealth and as a whole can support themselves. Taking 40% of our GDP and giving it to those who have 64% if the nation’s wealth is absurd and unfair. Let the Baby-Boomers support other Baby-Boomers. They caused the Trillions of Debt, let them pay it back. The fact the vast majority of wealth is held by those of retirement age.



Those of you who remembered and learned the lessons of your parents who survived the Great Depression, and saved for the future like the Ant will on continue to live comfortably. The Boomers who so changed society that they believe that nobody should suffer because of poor life choices, including themselves may suffer as did the Grasshopper. Why should the current working generation continue to pay for the past generation who has continuously failed to live within its means? More importantly why should future generations have to sacrifice for the majority of never satisfied selfish self center Baby-boomers who put themselves and the entire country into such massive debt that we may never recover.

Baby-Boomers saw more economic growth and a greater increase in the standard of living than any generation in history, they borrowed and spent with abandon. They destroyed the idea of the extended family taking care of the elderly; they shipped their parents off to old-age-homes on borrowed money; as a whole they are spending their children’s inheritance, and leaving nothing for their kids and a mountain of credit card debt and a home with an upside down mortgage. They created a tax system so that even if they do leave something behind it gets sucked up to pay for other Baby-Boomers retirement.

The Baby-Boomer zeitgeist is that of the Grasshopper. From TinyLiving to Dave Ramsey, Generation X, Millennials and the new Silent Generation are again seeing the wisdom of the Ant and taking it to heart. Being debt free, and the liberty that accompanies it, is getting to be a bigger status symbol than shinny BMW (with a $600/month payment) or a 500hp hotrod. The current workers will not tolerate ever larger and larger parts of their labor being used to pay for past generations who refused to live within their means. Post-Boomers are going Galt. Already we see men, just not play the game, when extra work and effort results in ever greater confiscation by the government, why work. Generations of taking the surplus that resulted from Ant behavior of a majority of workers is disappearing; the Ant has learned that surplus for his extra effort is going to the Grasshopper not him or his children, so he’s not putting in the extra effort. In fact the Ant is joining the Grasshopper. With less and less working age people actually employed the fact is the future generations are saying loud and clear, “Boomers, since your leaving us debt for an inheritance, we aren’t working to pay for you luxury retirement.”

Unfortunately Boomers control current politics, their Grasshopper zeitgeist is leading to the destruction of our country. Baby-Boomers sheer numbers mean that the Post-Boomer generations don’t really have any say in government. What Post-Boomer generations can and are doing is going Galt, simply by choosing to live debt free with less stuff and do less work; the PC term is living simply. Boomers are failing to see the fact that Post-Boomer Ants have let go of their emotional distress at the plight of the Grasshopper, and again as an example for others to try and avoid, will allow the Grasshopper to suffer the fate of his choice of life style.

Obama Says We are a Collectivist Nation

By Tom Rhodes, 1/19/2013

During Obama’s speech outlining his 23 executive orders to advance the governments incremental ban firearms he said, “we are all responsible for each other.” That is pure Collectivist tripe, this one phrase exposes his mindset, and that mindset doesn’t include individual liberty and freedom as core beliefs. The USA is not a collectivist nation. In the USA I am not by brother’s keeper. Our Declaration of Independence made this quite clear. We are free to pursue happiness, there is no guarantee that we will achieve it, nor obligation placed on others to provide it.

Because we are a free nation, I am free to charitably help anyone I want but there is no moral rational to force me to be charitable if I choose to be a selfish bastard. Being a selfish bastard may be morally wrong, but that doesn’t justify using force to take the property of a person who is selfish. That means if my neighbor has a string of bad luck he is not my responsibility. I am free to determine what if any part of my property I choose to donate to him to help him out. I’m free to put whatever conditions on my charity I choose, as in “I’ll pay your electric bill this month, but if you don’t at least try to find a job, and clean up your yard I’ll not help you again.”

If a woman decides to have children without a husband to help her raise and provide for those children, neither she nor her children are my responsibility.

Even though a corporation is doing what the government encouraged, if it fails, sustaining that corporation is not my responsibility. The loss like the profits should be the shareholders, not mine.

Contrary to the “progressive” crap you believe this country’s Founding Fathers did not guarantee success or happiness; they guaranteed the right to pursue it. They didn’t even guarantee the ability to pursuit it, only that the government doesn’t have the right to interfere with your pursuit of happiness. The sole responsibility of the government (our country) is to protect all individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equally under the law.

I am responsible to my God, my country, my family, and myself, and to nobody else. My God asks me to be generous to widows orphans and those who’ve fallen on bad times, he did not ask the government to take my money and do those things if I choose not to. My country was instituted at the consent of the governed and we choose to limit it severely, I am not responsible for its actions outside of its very limited scope. I am responsible to provide for, and protect my family. I don’t expect my neighbor to give me food, shelter, educate my kids, or fix my car without me paying for his goods and services. Nobody else is responsible for me, my actions, my well being, or my happiness; if I fail in that responsibility then I not my neighbor should suffer the consequences. Yes there is risk I will fail, but I prefer dangerous liberty over the safety of collectivist tyranny.

Democrats' Dream for America

By Tom Rhodes, 9/6/2012

The Democrat National Convention isn't over and they're in damage control mode already. They actually showed what the Democrats believe, and said what they meant, but forgot the nation not just loyal statist Democrats was watching. The DNC has shown that the Democrats are not "progressive" but are regressive statists. Wanting the USA to regress to the conditions of other nations where the Ruling Elite dictate to the masses what they should have, what they should think etc. Forget the clear will of even their own delegates. The Democrats want to return to what is the historic norm not to maintain or advance the unique liberty and freedom the USA was founded on, and created to protect.

The Democrats struck God from their platform, and their ruling elders realized this was a mistake. With polls only 3-5% of the population being atheists and a strong super majority being Christian, the DNC ruling elite realized they better put God back the DNC Platform or risk alienating a huge swath of voters. They showed that they don't even respect the vote of their own people. When a voice vote was called to amend their platform and reinstate God into it, even after three calls, there was not a even a clear 50% majority much less the necessary 2/3rds required to amend their platform. No reasonable person could hear those votes and not know that the majority of Democrat delegates to the DNC clearly wanted God removed from the Democrat Party Platform. Because they believed that it was a bad political move (they are not stupid) the DNC ruling elite declared the motion to pass, ignoring the will of the delegates. Their attitude is clear, they the DNC ruling elite, know better than mere delegates, what's best for them. The will of the people in the Democrat party as represented by their duly selected representatives, the voting delegates, be damned.

This is the theme of Democrats. They don't believe as that first President of the upstart third party, the Republicans, proclaimed 150 years ago, that our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The now already infamous video they highlighted at the DNC clearly stated their position "Government is the only thing we all belong to." Wow, we all belong to the government? What a far cry from our Declaration of Independence which clearly states, "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In fact the entire Democrat National Convention flies in the face of the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly and boldly proclaims that our government was instituted at the consent of the people to protect God given unalienable rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The government belongs to us, not the other way around. Democrats obviously don't believe that. Freedom of association, assembly, religion, speech, etc. are all things they want to curtail because those are all based on voluntary relations with each other that generally diminish the power of the ruling elite. At this year's DNC the Democrats have renounced America's experiment in liberty and chosen to regress to the historic norm of man. Self-government, individual rights, limits on government power and authority, are all ideas that gall and restrict what the Democrat ruling elite want. Obama himself said that the problem with the Constitution was it made it hard to get things done. He and the other elitists of the Democrat party, obviously believe that they know what's best for everybody, and want the power and authority to dictate what they believe is plainly in everybody's best interest. Even as to include or not include God in their Platform, regardless of the clearly shouted NO! of the delegates to the DNC.

The DNC and Obama vetted and approved the >video which boldly proclaims that the only thing we all belong to is the Government. Unlike Abe Lincoln, and most of America, Democrats believe that the people are of the government, by the government and for the government.

Most of America realize the government is a necessary evil, but with massive immigration over the past century, an increasingly large part of our country no longer holds the ideas of our founding fathers at heart; that government is limited and has the sole purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and happiness. It is not and never was instituted to provide for the "needs" of individual people. Charity is not and never was a purpose of our government, this change and idea that government and not the people should provide charity is a slow but dramatic shift in our nation. An old Davy Crocket legendary story explains this well, read Not Yours To Give, a letter by the colonel himself for the best understanding of the purpose of our government.

I belong to my church, I belong to the Libertarian party, I belong to several FB groups, etc. I belong to a good number of organizations because I freely and voluntarily choose to belong to those organizations and groups. I do not belong to the government.

I am a US citizen, not a subject of any kingdom, dictatorship, or government. I and each and every other person is sovereign, we don't have a sovereign ruling elite. This is the USA and the government is supposed to be the subject of the people not the other way around. Should our government become too tyrannical and intolerable, it is our right and duty to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, that we deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. (Yah, I stole that).

I recognize and believe that I belong to my Creator, God. Not man, nor any institution created by man. The bible is clear, God has given me unalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness as I see fit, so long as I don't infringe upon another's pursuit of the same. Thomas Jefferson, with our other forefathers understood this and clearly explained that it was the government's role to protect those rights. Our Constitution clearly proclaims that We the People established the government and that We the People only granted it limited divided powers.

Obviously the Democrats don't believe that, and don't want Americans to believe that. From Pelosi's cry of "Are You Serious" when asked what part of the constitution granted the government the power to force people to purchase insurance, to Obama bemoaning the fact that the Constitution is a flawed document that makes it "hard to get things done" to his declaring that as president he has the right to assassinate citizens without due process and exercising that right; the limits on government powers, and original purpose of our government are not part of the Democrats' belief system.

From dictating to their delegates and party that God, must be in their platform, to telling you that at some point you've made enough to proclaiming "Government is the only thing we all belong to" , the Democrats clearly don't want you to have, live, or believe in the American Dream or the principles America was founded. The Democrats have loudly proclaimed that "We are the ruling elite, shut up and do as we say, eat what we tell you eat, tolerate what we tell you to tolerate, drive what we tell you to drive, ....." They are all about telling the people that the "government knows best" and dictating how you pursue happiness.

As for me I say to the Democrats "NO! I will Live Free or Die!" Yah, Yah, Yah, I know it's not as eloquent as Thomas Paine's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" but what do you expect, I'm a biker who was educated in a public government school, while Thomas Paine was home schooled and received a private education, another thing the Democrats want to outlaw for all but the ruling elite. Obama's actions are a prime example; under his leadership, the Democrats ended the funding that allowed poor inner-city blacks vouchers to go to private schools in DC, while not sending his daughters to the same failed public schools he forces the masses to go. Different education for the ruling elite than the masses; do you see a pattern?

The words and actions of Democrats demonstrates their desire to end America's experiment in Liberty and return to the historic norm of a few ruling elite dictating how the masses live with them living in relative luxury doling out favors and privileges as they see fit to whom they see fit. The idea that people should have liberty, and the resulting benefits/consequences of the liberty is not acceptable to them. They are busybody nanny's who want to treat We the People like children, in some utopian idea that the government can and should make sure everybody has the same. Like mommy's who want every kid to get a trophy regardless of how well they perform; and like mommy's who want everybody to be safe and never do anything dangerous or take a risk, Democrats don't trust and won't allow Liberty; Liberty involves risk; Liberty rewards winners; Liberty allows suffering for risky decisions.

The first colony here in America tried the Democrat's idea, making sure everybody got equal shares of everything regardless of input. That failed, it resulted in starvation and death. The idea that mankind should use the force of government to equalize results of life has been tried over and over again throughout man's history; it always results in the same thing, privation and tyranny. Democrats, their ideas, and leadership, when instituted lead to privation. Look at Detroit, it has been under Democrat control for over 6 decades, it's a former bankrupt shell of what was the 5th largest and most advanced industrial city in America. Superbowl commercial's aside; it is a prime example of the failed policies of the Democrat Party where those policies are fully implemented. If we follow Democrat lead, and institute their policies, what is now the ruins of Detroit is the outcome for all of America.

Socialism is the embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins

by Tom Rhodes, 5/19/2012

In the name of “fairness” socialists like Spread-the-Wealth-Obama, famous for such statements as “At some point you’ve made enough money,” have taken the Seven Deadly Sins and attempt to make them morally acceptable.

The Seven Deadly Sins: Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony, make up the basis for socialism and statist actions.

Wrath: Obama told Charlie Gibson in an interview that although raising the taxes on the rich would decrease not increase government revenue, it had to be done to make things “fair”. Wrath, or revenge, upon those people who are more successful than most is the rationale, not fairness. In Obama's world it is only "fair" if the rich are punished for being successful.

Greed: Statists greedily want control and power even more than money. They hate individual liberty and freedom. Protecting individual liberty removes power from them. Look at the fight against changing our tax code which gives them the control and power to reward and punish using the tax code. Legally GE can get away with paying no taxes, while doctors and other small businessmen are crippled using the same laws. Tarp, the Stimulus, etc. are all socialist policies to reward those in power. Too Big to Fail is the excuse used to justify greed.

Sloth: Socialism, and current statists use “entitlements” to reward those who don’t work by “spreading the wealth.” From paying farmers not to plant certain crops or not to plant crops at all, to making it possible for generations to live on the dole, our entitlement programs have morphed from good programs taking care of the needy, to dependency programs rewarding those who can but won’t work.

Pride: Despite the historic failure of socialism wherever implemented, socialists continue to make claims to its moral superiority to free markets and liberty. From the first British colony to the USA to the 20th century Communist collapses, socialism has always resulted in poverty, starvation, and privation for the masses with luxury for the ruling elite. The claim that capitalism, not socialism, is the cause of poverty is an example of extremely prideful hubris.

Lust: This is one of the primary tools of socialists, from Marx to Hitler to Obama. All have shown that they use and embrace lust in the masses to destroy the social foundations of free and moral societies. The destruction of the traditional family has been espoused and is the method they are and have used to further enable power in the state and not with the people. Although no longer open about destroying the family, they now use “tolerance” to force normalization of lust on society. Obama's approval and call for same sex marriage as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage is a primary example of normalizing lust.

Envy: Socialists are simply envious of those who individually make life better for themselves. They support wealth redistribution, because they envy those who are successful. J. K. Rowling is obscenely rich, made so by hundreds of millions of people poorer than she freely trading some of their wealth for her stories. Socialists envy J.K. Rowling and her wealth saying that the hundreds of millions of people who’ve purchased Harry Potter and made J.K. Rowling wealthy were abused. The entire occupy movement is based on class envy and embraces envy as morally righteous.

Gluttony: Look at the ruling elite who espouse socialistic statism. The prime example is Al Gore who tells us all to live without internal combustion engines and use less power while personally and consistantly using more energy than a small town. Gluttony is the rule not the exception to the ruling elite, especially the socialist ruling elite who can never have enough power.

Thinking like socialistic statists the seven deadly sins are virtues, and are openly used to espouse both socialism and statism.

Communist Holiday is Now USA's Loyalty Day

By Tom Rhodes, 5/2/12

Obama Declares May Day as Loyalty Day.

In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

C. E. Ruthenberg wrote in the 1923 May Day edition of the Weekly Worker,: "May Day - the day which inspires fear in the hearts of the capitalists and hope in the workers - the workers the world over - will find the Communist movement this year stronger in the U. S. than at any time in its history.... The road is clear for greater achievements, and in the United States as elsewhere in the world the future belongs to Communism."

"Socialism appeals to better classes and has far more strength. Attack the state and you excite feelings of loyalty even among the disaffected classes; but attack the industrial system and appeal to the state, and you may have loyalty in your favor. " ~ John Bates Clark

If you look at any of our oaths of office, you find no required "loyalty" but instead, promises to defend the Constitution form all enemies foreign and domestic. Or declaration boldly proclaims that the people not only aren't required to be loyal, but have the right and duty to do away with the government if it fails to protect the people's rights.

"Loyalty of the law-making power to the executive power was one of the dangers the political fathers foretold. " ~ Garet Garrett

Obama's Mayday proclamation pretty much renders the United States to being a mere parody of itself. How would the press and Obama supports have reacted if Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon made the same calling for the people of the USA to recognize May Day as "Loyalty Day." The parody is complete; Obama has called for the quintessential communist Holiday, to be celebrated in loyalty to the state.

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." ~ Mark Twain

Florida Rep. Works with Socialist to Nullify Rights

By Tom Rhodes 4/25/2012

Democrat Rep. Ted Deutch [D-FL19] with Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, has cosponsored an amendment that would be a drastic and fundamental change to the US Constitution. Last week in Washington, several congressmen and senators held a forum to draw attention to their attempt to nullify constitutional right of entrepreneurs and corporations. The Sanders-Deutch Amendment says the government can ignore constitutional rights.

The Sanders-Deutch Amendment says: "The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state."

This means that the Bill of Rights is nullified; if you exercise your First Amendment right of assembly and the government decides that that assembly is for business purposes then your constitutional rights do not extend to you. If you as a private entity form a LLC or sole proprietor corporation, limited partnership, or the like, then you give up your constitutional rights. Basically if you are successful you must give up your right to free speech, etc.

The fact that a Florida Congressman would openly promote such a tyrannical statist change to our Constitution is hard to fathom.

The Sanders-Deutch Amendment also says, "Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States". Since there are virtually no limits to what can be regulated, from what you can eat or serve in your restaurant to what kind of light bulb you can purchase what Florida Rep. Ted Deutch is saying that if you are successful enough to use legal means to protect yourself, LLC's, corporations, etc. you give up your constitutional rights.

If the Sanders-Deutch Amendment passes then for any legal corporation, including individual people successful enough to incorporate, then all their papers, data, and property can be searched or confiscated with no warrant or due process, because this amendment says that constitutional rights are only valid for "natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations." This means that no group, or LLC, or partnership, or corporation has the right to defend itself in court, fight abuse of the government, or even publicly say what the government is doing to them. This applies to internet companies, Doctors, insurance companies, every business; this gives the government the right to have access any and all information that any business has on any individual without needing a warrant. From your purchases at Amazon to the private notes of your shrink, this Amendment makes what little privacy we have a thing of the past.

If you are in business and the government wants your property, you no longer have to be justly compensated; you no longer have the right to sue the government if they take your property. If the Army needs more housing for troops, then put them in the local motel, at the motel's expense, as that outdated Third Amendment "does not extend to for-profit corporations". The government won't even need to tax the rich, they will be allowed to just go to any bank and take what funds they want from any corporate account, as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures "does not extend to for-profit corporations". When a company invents something cool, the government will be able to take it, patent laws will apply to protect companies from other companies, but if abused by the government the "right" to redress grievances "does not extend to for-profit corporations".

Any business could be silenced, deprived of liberty or property, all without due process of law or just compensation because the Sanders-Deutch Amendment removes constitutional protections against these types of abuses. This sounds like, and is, the government wanting subjects with no power to fight the government. Once people assemble and form a group to fight the government, they lose their rights. This is a sick perverted means to justify government tyranny.

Not only does the Sanders-Deutch Amendment negate the free speech of groups of people, including corporations, it indirectly eliminates the rights of all individuals. At the forum where Florida Democrat Deutch and Vermont Socialist Sanders promoted their proposed insanely demented and radical constitutional amendment to nullify the Bill of Rights, Democrat Leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats now have a unambiguous scheme to "amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns." That is simply the statist's emotional call to sell the public on the need for an Amendment to eliminate constitutional restrictions on the power of government.

The Moral Value of Effort

By Tom Rhodes, 12/7/2011

Imagine you are a mildly disabled couple with no employment, if you apply you are currently eligible to receive more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. Not only is there is no requirement to show your net worth and assets, but they are not considered, the only thing considered to be eligible is your income. Wages not wealth are what we tax, and use measure a person's ability to pay.

Wages are not considered a person's own but your labor is considered the government's who determines what part of those wages you are allowed to keep. Our whole system is based on taxing the labor of those who work; it is assumed if you don't work you have no access to money. This is why the average person living on welfare has color TV, Cable, AC and Heat, Microwaves, a car, and lives in an apartment or house with more square feet per person than the average middle class European. Significant numbers of people on welfare are better off living on the dole than trying to live on the wages commensurate with their skills, and can and do live without working better than if they worked, the incentive to work and increase their skills is not there. We reward those with no skills or ambition. This is not to say that there are not people truly in need, but that number is far less than the numbers of people who actually live on the dole.

Actually being needy is not a requirement for government "charity." Consider this couple, they live in a million dollar mansion, etc, and have huge amounts of accumulated wealth, can afford to give to charity and travel the world, yet receive tens of thousands of dollars from the government a year because their income indicates that they live in poverty. No not everybody is abusing the system this much, but why are we giving money to anybody who can support themselves but won't. Our current welfare system is immoral.

The reason why the US and Germany are arguably the most successful in the world, is they share as societies a basic moral value. These values can be summed up as follows: Effort should lead to reward as often as possible. People who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at prosperity but not a guarantee. People should be rewarded monetarily based on enterprise, merit, and effort. People should be rewarded for exercising self-control while sloth and envy should not be rewarded. Our government and other institutions should nurture responsibility and fairness and shame irresponsibility and favoritism.

However there are a large group of people who see things through poorly shaded lenses that cloud their vision with an image of a permanent class war. They do not think it matters how people conduct themselves, they only consider the final outcome of who has and does not have wealth. Rather than expect a person to be self-reliant they assume any person who does not have wealth is poor because a person of wealth purposefully withheld either opportunity or property. They do not consider the effort put into creating and accumulating wealth to have any more value than breathing. These people are generally liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, etc, and all firmly believe that resistance to redistribution of wealth is greed and avarice and treated with outrage.

Our current financial crisis came from bankers buying off politicians and both getting rich off of securing mortgages to people who were not qualified to repay them. Even now the government is requiring banks to grant loans to people who cannot repay them, in order to be "fair." We still reward sloth and envy those who legally acquire wealth. We know this yet, the left, our press, the government, and the banks refuse to even talk about letting the people who caused the crisis to be held responsible. Our massive debt is the problem, not a lack of taxes, yet the left never even considers any strategy to unwind the gigantic debt buildup. Because the basic structural problems plaguing our economy are not attended to, nor does our current leadership, regardless of party, appear to be willing to address them, as we currently see, the result is that the United States suffering from a horrible crisis of trust. The result of this lack of trust is crippling slowdown in growth, a paralyzed government, and the strangest direction of politics in modern history.

Business is sitting on massive wealth, but will not invest it because the uncertainty of whether they will be allowed to grow those investments. If investment and labor cannot be reasonably assured to produce prosperity, while government cronyism and theft are visibly rewarded and while we routinely provide for those who can but don't provide for themselves, you cannot expect people to work and invest with such uncertainty and obvious moral corruption. The very moral fabric that created the most prosperous and generous country the world has ever seen is being torn apart by power hungry collectivists who seek to redistribute the wealth of this nation not based on the idea that effort should lead to reward as often as possible, but based on the idea that regardless of effort everybody should receive the same rewards, and the ruling elite should receive a lot more.

We cannot subsidize behaviors that make us poorer, and penalize behaviors that make us richer and expect people to choose to behave in a manner that enriches themselves and the country. If you want people who have legally acquired wealth, to invest that wealth (not hoard and protect it), you cannot penalize the profits from investing and take away the fruits of their labor to such an extent that they are better off doing nothing with their labor and wealth than they are to exploit both for their and their communities betterment. Why would a person or company make an investment whose efforts are taxed to such an extent that if they simply purchased gold or other commodity and did nothing, they would make more off the increase in value due to inflation, than the profits from investing?

Here is an example; we need massive expansion to our aging power grid. Power companies are regulated extensively but guaranteed a profit (about 10%). If you have money to invest and after you pay the taxes on your dividends the real profit from investing in a power company is a modest but because power companies are government protected monopolies such investments are fairly safe. This investment would allow the power company to expand and make improvements. Now if you invested that same money in gold, you have an even safer haven for your wealth and the return is greater than the investing in a power company. There is not growth, but the wealth is protected against inflation; the growth and payout from the power company doesn't even cover real inflation. Obviously the incentive is no longer to invest but to protect wealth and assets. It is the government regulation that severely restricts the profit that can be made by power companies, and takes the profit that can be made by investors, and inflates the value of dollars, which has made conditions such that those with wealth are better off sitting on it that putting it to work. Since we now punish people who invest and work hard, and reward hoarding wealth and doing nothing, people are no longer investing and working hard, but are doing everything they can to protect what assets (wealth) they have.

Eliminating those who would protect the very moral fabric of our society is essential for liberals and the Wall Street - Government Complex. The ruling elite do not garner wealth through effort but by graft. They make the less fortunate dependent upon the largess of the ruling elite to buy their votes so they may remain in power and suck the wealth and labor from those who labor. Explain why congress and its employees are exempt from insider trading laws. Explain why the ruling elite guaranteed known bad mortgages, and rewarded bankers and themselves with massive amounts of money at the expense of the taxpayer. Explain why it is acceptable to have generations of people living on the dole. Explain why with more and more spending and more and more government control that the actual output of government education continues to get worse not better, especially for those who live dependent upon the government for their every need. Explain why they have restructured and tried to change the purpose of government to supply the needs of everybody, rather than provide protection for the rights of all individuals equally. Explain why we reward sloth and envy and punish self-reliance and effort. Obviously those who would return the US to a system where effort, enterprise, productivity, and self-discipline were rewarded and bad governance, sloth, and envy were not rewarding, would result in the ruling elite losing both wealth and power. The protection of individual liberty, although historically prove to enhancing a societies overall wealth and well being, diminishes central control and power, the ruling elite would rather all lose liberty than they have less power.

It took a little while longer than I expected but the ruling elite in DC have succeeded in eliminating or silencing all the presidential candidates who are willing to address the true problems facing this country. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, and all the third party candidates have effectively been disqualified by the media and ruling elite in Washington. Even though Ron Paul, is still taking 2nd place in polls, and the people resonate with his message, the press and ruling elite will not address the issues he and others running who represent half of Americans who don't live off the government. All these candidates the collectivists don't want you exposed to share a common belief. They believe it is moral and just, and have a willingness, to hold the government accountable for its spending and seek to reestablish the basic moral formula that made this country great, based on moral values that has historically proven to provide the highest standard of living for the most people, a moral formula that so called progressives hate and refuse to acknowledge or address. That moral formula is simple, Effort should lead to reward as often as possible.

The Obama/Progressive theory of exploitation.

By Tom Rhodes, 5/31/2011

The Obama/ Progressive theory of exploitation can be summed up in this quote by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "white folks' greed runs a world in need." No new thought here, according to Dr. Thomas Sowell this explanation of economic and other differences is among the oldest, and most factually discredited, explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.

This idea has mass appeal, and satisfies an emotional need, to place the blame on others who have done better in the world for your not having done as well. It however runs contrary to history, and is an antithesis to the founding of the United States of America.

There is deep emotional appeal to this idea, and the plethora of evil deeds from every facet of society provides ample ammunition to support virtually any ideology which blames other people’s sins for their problems. This notion that the poor are poor because the rich have earned their riches on the backs of the poor is an ideological theme that plays well to the uneducated in Third World countries to explain why they lag so far behind the West.

Today and for the past couple of centuries, western culture dominates success compared to other cultures. This produces an image of rich European white people and poor non-white people. Many so called progressives try to blame this on race, and racial oppression. It completely ignores the fact that over human history this has not been the case. Northern white Europeans lagged far behind Eastern, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures for centuries. As Dr. Sowell notes, “In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.”

We would all laugh at the idea if Europe of a few centuries ago blamed its relative poorness on China’s relative wealth. Europeans changed their culture, from a doggedly feudal society, with virtually no rights of individuals, and regular abuse by a few ruling elite to a more liberal society, which acknowledged individual rights. Expanding on notions like Rule of Law, and Equality Under the Law, and Property Rights. This ideology eventually lead to the end of acceptance of slavery, civil rights. This expansion of rights, lead to huge increases in wealth for most of Western civilization. It cannot be reasonably argued that the standard of living for the vast majority of people in western civilization is not superior to that of what is now considered Third World civilization.

Obama and other elitists, rather than try to promote the ideology and actions that created such vast wealth for such a huge segment of the world, insist upon using the old, disproven, but emotionally appealing notion that those who are prosperous got their by suppressing others.

“Exploitation” theory cannot be reconciled with the facts. If this theory were true, the collapse of imperialism, which returned many countries to self rule from former colonial rule by English, French, or Spanish conquerors, should have resulted in increased overall wealth for those countries. Today many Third World countries are poorer and more oppressed now than when they were ruled by Western countries a few generations ago.

For some strange reason Obama and progressive elitists, want to return to rule by a few elite, eliminate both equal protection and rule of law, and institute historically failed socialist ideologies, fostered by the factually disproven but emotionally satisfying “Exploitation” ideology.

Liberalism, now termed libertarianism, was an evolved ideology which lead to more wealth for more people of all types than any ideology in the history of man. Proof of the failure of “Exploitation” theory, can be seen in Dr. Walter Williams old but still relevant video series unintended consequences.

The Duty to Confront Evil

When I grew up there was this quaint notion that part of growing up and becoming a man was accepting the duty to protect yourself, protect your family, and protect those around you who were smaller, weaker, and less able to protect themselves. This idea that as an adult, your security, and the security of those around you was your responsibility, is constantly being fought by those on the left. The idea that you have a duty to confront evil, to not run away, and to protect those who couldn’t protect themselves from evil, implied you had a duty to be prepared. Looking back the games, sports, and activities of my youth, they all seemed all to be preparation for that duty. From Boy Scouts, to games on the play ground, to competitive sports, to fishing and hunting, the Left has and is systematically attacking both this duty, and the activities that prepared young people for that duty. Consider the rules and consequences in school today. If a student sees a bully picking on an obviously weaker victim then steps in between the bully and his victim, physically stopping the attack, the result will be that the student protecting a weaker victim, because he was engaged in a fight, will be suspended and punished the same as the bully. There is zero tolerance for fighting, regardless of the reason. This codifies the idea that there is no evil, and teaches that taking responsibility for protecting yourself, or protecting those who are weaker is a punishable offense. Do we really want to teach our boys that if they see a man attacking a weaker woman to do nothing, allow the attack to continue, and call the police?

You’ll never hear it from a liberal, and rarely from an atheist, but there are evil people in this world. There always has been and always will be evil among us. In your local paper you will see acts of evil like murder, arson, rape, assault, robbery, and fraud every day. On a rare occasion you will see the evil act of an individual like that in Tuscon that grips our nation. On less rare occasions you will see the acts of people who believe in an evil ideology as recently happened in Pakistan, where the governor of Punjab was assassinated. His offense was opposing evil laws that carried a death penalty for blasphemy. Those who supported his assassination celebrated publicly and urged more such killings. There is a word for laws and ideology that calls for the execution of individual who don’t hold the same belief, that word is evil. What better word to describe the practice of stoning a rape victim to death for adultery than evil.

Whether it is a single murdering psychotic, or a group of people griped by an evil belief, we see that innocent Americans have been murdered at shopping malls, schools, restaurants, churches and courthouses, work, and even a grocery store parking lot. It should be plain that there is no safe place against evil. Worldwide subways, train stations, air flights, any place people gather are targets for evil people.

The evil that some people do, makes no logical sense. Trying to understand why psychotics commit evil acts is a waste of time. Limiting the actions of normal everyday people, because of the acts of evil is counterproductive, and will not eliminate or even reduce the carnage evil people commit.

If you look and read, you can find many stories of heroism where people didn’t run away from evil but ran to the shooting in Tucson to help and/or attempt to stop the evil being committed. There are many good people in this country that will not stand by while evil attacks. Well-known 18th century political philosopher Edmond Burk said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." What that means is that evil is not neutral; if you and/or society stop resisting evil, it will continue to grow and spread. It is a call to arms for people to stop being complacent. Evil is not neutral and there can be no neutrality exercised toward it. Anyone who is not against it is perforce in favor of it. The Left in America by its actions and words supports evil.

The utopian idea that if we educate everybody and just make them “understand,” will end oppression and we will all get along is a fantasy. Whether it is the anarchists voluntary “stateless society,” or socialists “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” leftist views disregard the idea that there is evil and are naive. It is also naive belief that we can keep the tools for doing evil from lunatics by creating laws that make the tools illegal for everybody, or attempting to confiscate the tools of destruction.

Sadly, another lunatic or zealot of evil ideology will commit more mass carnage. Maybe tomorrow, next week or next year, it will happen again. Just as the twin towers were brought down, innocents shot while enjoying dinner in the Texas Luby’s Cafeteria, or the recent massacre in Tucson, evil will attack again. Knowing this, rather than restrict and neuter the innocent, prudence dictates that we should be prepared. It is our duty and responsibility to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and the friends in our communities from evil. We as individuals cannot depend on the brave and earnest officers of the law to be everywhere at all times and unerringly protect us from all evil. We can nolonger disconnect ourselves from the evil in the world around us, the idea that you can go to the mall, out to eat, travel, blissfully unaware are over. As citizens in our communities, not just self-centered individuals, it is incumbent to be ready to fight evil if we are to survive as a free people. We do not have to go around scared, uncomfortable, looking over our shoulders all the time, but we must mentally prepare ourselves and stay tuned into our environment.

The Left is trying to use the action of a crazed evil man, to enact anti-liberty legislation of all sorts. The Left has always been and continues to be the enemy of freedom and liberty. They generally want to silence any opposition, and control everybody, rather than allow the common man to speak his mind and control of himself. The Left lost its monopoly on the US Media years ago, and since then continuously tires to suppress speech it doesn’t like. They are using the actions of evil, to silence everybody. As an example consider US Representative from South Carolina, Democrat Clyburn, reporting that he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or that incites violence against a federal official or member of Congress. Interesting how the legislation doesn’t protect the same use language or symbols if used by congressmen against political parties, unelected candidates, etc. So language and symbols perceived as threatening by a congressman to target, attack, or defuse the Tea Party, the NRA, or an individual not associated with the government will still be protected.

The Left is claiming that it is the “violent rhetoric” of conservatives that contributed or caused the tragedy Tucson. Not a single American politician, nor significant segment of any political movement, nor statistically identifiable share of the American people, has made a serious threat or call for the violent death of its political opponents. For every example of a conservative who has used a militaristic or violent metaphor the Left has used to “prove” their position, the pundits, bloggers, and chatters have found multiple examples of more atrocious violent rhetoric by the Left. Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. and the instant availability of information that the internet has made for everybody is a bane to the Left. They no longer control the availability information to the public, hence they call for “Net Neutrality” and more government control of the internet.

The Left is again calling for the failed policies of gun control. The dire predictions of gunfights in the streets, and increased violence, wherever gun rights are restored never materialize and are as rare or rarer than with restrictions on gun rights. Never mind the fact that since the Brady Bill expired in 2004 gun ownership has increased dramatically and all violent crime, including murders, has gone down. The truly evil mass murders of the last century, where hundreds of millions of people were murdered, all occurred where the government disarmed the people then murdered them (Germany, China, USSR, Cambodia, etc). Reason on logic does not play a part in the Left’s push to some unrealistic utopian fantasy. Rather than recognize and prepare against evil, which includes good people having the tools to protect themselves and their loved ones, the Left uses the heinous but rare evil acts of a lunatic to try and validate their attacks on rights, liberty, and freedom.

The failure to recognize evil and accept that evil exists will only make things easier for those who support evil ideology or who are just plain evil. We need not walk in fear of evil, but we must be prepared at all times to respond to evil. It is still each person’s duty to provide for their own protection, the protection of their loved ones and their communities, from murdering psychotic monsters. As part of being prepared we must fight the reasonless idea that restricting the natural rights of everybody is necessary to stop evil.

Hymn to the Welfare State

"Hymn to the Welfare State"
prepared by "Democrats for Better Government," Rio Grande Valley, Texas, 1964.

Government is my shepherd,

Therfor I need not work

It alloweth me to lie down on a good job.

It leadeth me beside still factories;

It destroyeth my initiative.

It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending,

I will fear no evil, the Government is with me.

It prepareth economic Utopia for me, appropriating earnings of my own grandchildren.

It filleth my head with false security;

My cup runneth over.

Surely the Government should care foe me all the days of my life!

So I shall dwell in a fool's paradise forever.

---

Editor's Note: We should have listened to them 46 years ago, they were right.

Obama Orders End to Individual Rights

Two weeks ago, President Obama signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law. Until then Interpol's property and assets were subject to search and seizure, and it was bound by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans. These limitations prevent the government authority from becoming tyrannical.


Consistent with his Marxist actions, following the historic practices of other Socialist/Marxist leaders, on Wednesday, December 16, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13524 to do an end run around the constitution and eliminate the constitutional restrictions that protect individuals in the United States. This single Executive Order allows a government agency that is not accountable to the US citizens the right to ignore constitutional limits and have virtual unlimited authority over the people of the United States. Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives can no longer be touched by the US citizens. Interpol's U.S. headquarters are in the Justice Department in Washington D.C., Why would our government allow or want police data to be stored in the Justice Department and not be suject to US Constitutional restraints? Why is it necessary to have a government agency (not a US agency), to be exempt from constitutional limitations? How can any "police" be exempt from the protections the constitutions offers to it's citizens? Interpol can now use illegal means to gather “evidence” against US citizens, arrest US citizens, and prosecute us without any of our normal constitutional protections.

This has to be the scariest disregard for the individual rights of people of the United States thus far Obama has shown. Obama took an oath swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This action not only doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; it clearly weakens and is designed to get around the constitutional restrictions on government authority.

This can only be described as a violation of his oath and an act of treason.

Copenhagen, The UN War Against Free Enterprise

In my past blogs, in the news, and on the net it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Previous posts listed quotes of environmental leaders that clearly noted that the science didn’t matter, that it was an “opportunity” for social justice.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world," Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998.

Copenhagen was not about saving the planet, or global warming, or climate change. It is the majority of UN nations (dictators, despots, socialist juntas, and all), wanting to end free market economics. The majority of less fortunate countries have significantly less economic freedom than the wealthier countries. Read the Handbook on Economic Freedom, or Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report.

Comparing the countries on the ranking chart for economic freedom to the activities at Copenhagen, it is clear that what they are trying to do at Copenhagen is transfer money from economically free countries to mostly economically un-free countries. Proof that Copenhagen is a war against capitalism, not a science based reaction to mans activities, comes from the words spoke to the general audience at Copenhagen.

“…our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” ~ Hugo Chavez, COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference, December 7-18, 2009.

From the writings and speeches of the proponents of dramatically changing the way everybody lives to stop “global warming”, the obvious agenda is against free market economics. The hostility towards free markets is based on some unfounded assumptions. 1) Since free markets allow some people to get “rich,” while others remain “poor,” the free market system is itself unjust; 2) The accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means; 3) The re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is the only means of attaining “social justice”. These are the same tired old Marxist arguments for socialism that history has repeatedly proven to be false, detrimental to society, and lead to more deaths in the last century than all the religious wars in history combined.

The first assumption that because some people receive more than others in a free market society, that it is unjust doesn’t take into consideration individuals. Societies are made of individuals not groups. Some individuals are smarter, more industrious, stronger, and/or more charming than others. In a free market, society rewards individuals based on the benefit they offer their fellow man. Tiger Woods is a charming, good looking, man who can hit a golf ball better than anybody else, and does it with style, and has a reputation for putting in more hour practicing and improving his craft than anybody else. Other individuals in society are willing to pay to watch him or have him promote their product, literally millions of individuals in society pay extra for products, or pay directly to watch him, thus he was richly rewarded. No person, or any corporation was forced to give Tiger money, he was rewarded voluntarily. His rewards were commensurate with what the rest of society voluntarily thought his work was worth. Tiger has now greatly hurt what society is willing to pay him to watch him hit a ball. Individuals in society have determined that his actions in breaking his marriage contract with his wife, that they no longer are willing to pay to see him hit a golf ball. Is that fair, why should he be paid less to hit a ball than he used to be paid? Because the benefit he provided to society is not as valuable. He was paid huge sums of money because the combination of skills, talent, work ethic, and charm he cultivated were rare and valuable. The same reason a schlepping tacos is paid little, the skill, talent and charm required to prepare a taco are low, and common. Would you pay $100 to for a taco? Of course not, but millions pay $100 or more to see a play, a sporting event, or go to a concert, because we feel it is worth the money, and are willing to exchange $100 of our labor, for the labor of some other to entertain us. This is a free market voluntary action. People are rewarded based on what other are willing to reward them for their service. Why should a person who is unwilling to take advantage of the education offered, un willing to do what has proven to lead to success and independence, be giving the fruits of the labor of people who do?


The second assumption that the accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means is even sillier. Again Tiger Woods has accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. How did he unjustly accumulate that wealth, nobody nor any company has ever been forced to give him a dime. The only unjust means I currently see in our US economy is large corporations buying off government officials to create laws to stifle completion. Our current system can and should be referred to as “Corporatism” not free enterprise, as the government has created huge hurdles for new business to get into any market thru excessive regulation.


Attaining “social justice” through the re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, exactly what Copenhagen is calling for, has been proven to only benefit the ruling elite, and send the remaining part of society into relative poverty. Look at the average Cuban for proof. Better yet, look at the Chinese, who have shown that as they move their economic system towards capitalism their standard of living is increasing. A final example Zimbabwe, which was called the breadbasket of Africa, exported huge amounts food until the Land reform in Zimbabwe redistributed wealth from “rich” is now starving and dependent on food aid.

AGW is just another excuse for Marxist elitists and despots of the world to try and gain control, and punish countries that are successful.

Socialism in Stages: Governments Produce Poverty

Note: This is a great article on the influence of socialism on our capitalistic society and a good basic document on economics.

Enjoy
2Bfree

---

Socialism in Stages
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.

By Dan Oliver Jr.

America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted détente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.

Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism, who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.

When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.

Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.

If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.

Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.

The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.

— Dan Oliver Jr. is Founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an MBA from INSEAD.

Original Article

Publicly Legitimate Ideas

The left clearly sees that using civil discourse to debating their ideas is not working. They no longer want to allow individuals to use logic, reason, history, nor their own personal experience, life goals, and dreams to judge the ideas. They find when having to debate their ideas openly and honestly, they are not garnering enough support. It seems people actually want to be able to advance themselves in voluntary exchange of goods and services, and don't really want the government to do more than keep a fair playing field for everybody. The people threw out the corporatism of the Republicans (they certainly aren't conservative), because rather than a level playing field the Republicans have been working towards offering big corporation unfair advantages in the free market.

The pesky constitution keeps getting in the way of liberals. Although he can't outright jail or imprison those who don't agree with him, Obama both directly and through his administration is attacking anybody who doesn't agree with him. This is hardly the open and honest debate he promised, but then lying and obfuscation has been his pattern since long before he was elected.

Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) beat senseless protestors because they didn't follow the liberal line, and what did the health care chairman of the SEIU do about it? He denounced conservative "terrorist tactics" aimed at derailing debate on healthcare. What the Hell! It’s OK for SEIU members to beat people who don’t agree with them because being a peaceful protestor, if you’re not liberal, is now defined as a terrorist.

Rush who is decidedly not a libertarian, and definitely not a liberal, has on occasion been critical of the ideas of those who may be considered left of center. He is also somewhat critical of the Obama administration. Rush has a little 3 hour radio show in the afternoons where he exercises his first amendment right and expresses his ideas. He's been doing so for around 20 years and I hear has been able to sell commercials for his broadcasts and done fairly well. His success is based on people freely choosing to listen to his ideas. Liberals don’t like his ideas so in communist authoritarian style, they have attacked him with made up quotes and lies about what he said, and using those to defame him, and have succeeded in denying him the right to purchase partial ownership in a private business. So you are no longer allowed to purchase a part of a business if you express your opinion and the left doesn't agree with it.

Harvard business school professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter justifies the depiction of tea partiers as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter in Politico writes, "President Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed - instead of the greater good - that they no longer have public legitimacy."

Aren’t America's enemies Islamofascists, people who would force Islamic law on everybody, who have called for the destruction of America? Aren’t our enemies those people who would silence free speech, and take away our unalienable rights? According to liberals American citizens who disagree with the president or the government elite are now the enemies of America. The ideas of the left can't win in reasoned debate and civil discourse so they simply declare any idea that is contrary to their agenda as not having "public legitimacy". Just try and ask Nancy Pelosi to constitutionally justify the Democrat’s health care legislation, “are you serious”. You see questions like that are not legitimate.

The liberal agenda appears to be ending free enterprise and individual achievement and consolidate power in the hands of elite leaders. So to further their agenda, they are now working as hard as they can at silencing opposition, attacking the individuals and groups who don't agree with them, rather than debate the merits of their agenda. Liberals have found that they cannot honestly debate and compete based on ideas. Violence is OK, dismissing and degrading those who don't agree is OK, denying people there rights is OK, as long as the violence, and attacks and violated rights are not liberal. If you’re a libertarian your really in trouble, as the ideas expressed by libertarians, ideas for liberty, and personal responsibility, are ideas liberals cannot tolerate and liberal leaders will not debate and if possible will not even allow others to hear. You see libertarians believe that in a free society, as long as an individual’s choice doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another, individuals are free to choose what’s best for them, and if an individual chooses poorly others are not forced to pay for that poor choice. That is an idea that the left has worked decades to silence, and cannot tolerate or allow to re-ignite, as it would put power pack to the states and the people, which is antithetical to their obvious goals.