Government Admits it was lying to us
All we can know for sure, whatever the govt tells you is not meant to be honest, it is meant to manipulate you
VIDEO - Fauci Admits Feds Initially Misled About Face Masks: ‘Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Workers’ Had Enough https://t.co/qO5G0G3arX
— Grabien (@GrabienMedia) June 17, 2020
Showing posts with label Too Much Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Too Much Government. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Monday, May 4, 2020
Prudence Dictates... But...
By Silence Dogood
The Constitution does not grant us rights, it acknowledges rights with which we are born. We can choose not to exercise them, but they cannot be taken away.
There is no provision of the Constitution allowing for the waiving of rights under any condition, but most legislatures are content to sit back and watch this all proceed without their fingerprints anywhere near it.
Our rights cannot simply be waived in the face of anything. From the beginning of the country, government has been trying to do just that. But government is a necessary evil, and that evil has a predictable nature.
It’s the nature of government and those in power to attempt to amass as much of that power as possible. The only way to have more power, is to have more control of the people, and that is done by force. Our Founding Fathers knew this and wrote the Constitution to guard against it as best it could be done. Yet those same forefathers were guilty of trying to take away the rights of the people and limits on government before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights, can you say "Alien and Sedition Acts."
If you add a belief in the superiority of the elite to dictate to the masses how they should live, you end up under standing today's Democrats’ basic nature: they know better than you do what you need, they are better than you are, smarter than you. Coronavirus just allowed a peek into their minds. Individuals are irrelevant to the left, as are your rights. The Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, by any means available, not the restraint on their power it was written to be. Remember that come November…or you soon won’t be allowed to say it.
Govenor rulings mandating stay at home orders are clearly unconstitutional, the fact that the people are tolerating them as well as we have with as few protests, and defiance of those unconstitutional orders, confirms Jefferson's words in the Declaraion of independence. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.:"
Let's not forget the BUT at the end of that sentence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Constitution does not grant us rights, it acknowledges rights with which we are born. We can choose not to exercise them, but they cannot be taken away.
There is no provision of the Constitution allowing for the waiving of rights under any condition, but most legislatures are content to sit back and watch this all proceed without their fingerprints anywhere near it.
Our rights cannot simply be waived in the face of anything. From the beginning of the country, government has been trying to do just that. But government is a necessary evil, and that evil has a predictable nature.
It’s the nature of government and those in power to attempt to amass as much of that power as possible. The only way to have more power, is to have more control of the people, and that is done by force. Our Founding Fathers knew this and wrote the Constitution to guard against it as best it could be done. Yet those same forefathers were guilty of trying to take away the rights of the people and limits on government before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights, can you say "Alien and Sedition Acts."
If you add a belief in the superiority of the elite to dictate to the masses how they should live, you end up under standing today's Democrats’ basic nature: they know better than you do what you need, they are better than you are, smarter than you. Coronavirus just allowed a peek into their minds. Individuals are irrelevant to the left, as are your rights. The Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, by any means available, not the restraint on their power it was written to be. Remember that come November…or you soon won’t be allowed to say it.
Govenor rulings mandating stay at home orders are clearly unconstitutional, the fact that the people are tolerating them as well as we have with as few protests, and defiance of those unconstitutional orders, confirms Jefferson's words in the Declaraion of independence. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.:"
Let's not forget the BUT at the end of that sentence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Friday, January 4, 2019
Libertarianism 101: Your Speech Rights
By Tom Rhodes, 1/4/2018
As long as speech doesn't specifically call for violence, is legally libel, etc. except in exceptional circumstances, as in a state of war, your speech is protected. Prior restraint is an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement. The Supreme Court consistently rules that prior restraint is unconstitutional. According to multiple Supreme Court rulings, the following are all considered protected speech:
There are no rulings or laws or amendments that say speech must be fair, nice, or approved by society at large. Speech is protected not your feelings, not your ideas, as such:
Your only right to not hear "hate speech," or any other "speech" you don't like, is to walk away, turn the channel, close the web page, etc.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Marco Rubio Sponsors Bill to Fine You $1Million if You Trade with Israel
By Tom Rhodes, 7/21/2017
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Portland Mayor calls for the End of Freedom of Speech.
by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/2017
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Matt’s Torturous Path
by Pete Bloome, 4/3/2017
On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.
I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.
Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.
Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.
Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.
The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.
As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer
On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.
I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.
Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.
Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.
Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.
The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.
As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Evil of Wealth Disparity
By Tom Rhodes, 10/20/2015
Hearing the Democrat Debate, and the cry from progressives all over the social media, one thing is clear. They firmly believe that the inequality in wealth distribution in the USA is a moral evil. For some reason the left takes the idea that because “all men are created equal” that if they don’t share an equal portion of society’s wealth that somehow society is not treating them equally hence a society that does not have equal distribution of wealth is an evil society.
The left’s solution is to make the wealthy more poor, except for themselves. Hillary make $200K per speech, if she chose she could give a poor family $100K every time she speaks and help lift that family out of poverty and still take home $100K per speech. She obviously doesn’t actually believe in redistribution of her wealth. The question is how does Hillary Clinton making $200,000 per speech hurt the poor? What is morally wrong about Hillary charging as much as others are voluntarily willing to pay for speaking hurt the poor.
Obviously there is no moral problem with Hillary making mega bucks. What poor family can’t find a job because society choose to pay Hillary $200K for a few hours work? How did her highly paid speech writer, who earns a very good living, hurt the poor by voluntarily accepting a part of Hillary’s evil wealth in exchange for her labor hurt the poor? What moral dictum did Hillary violate earning millions of dollars from her political experience?
If because all people being created in God’s image have equal worth, thus deserve an equal share of society’s wealth, they why doesn’t a murderer, or rapist, or child molester deserve an equal share of society’s wealth? If their actions and impact on society don’t determine what wealth society should give them, what does? If you believe that their actions (murder, rape, child molestation), should result in society’s punishment, and exclusion (to protect others in society who behave acceptably), then you don’t believe everybody should receive the wealth of society equally, rather people should be punished, banished, or rewarded based on their actions in society.
If the poor have their basic material needs of food and shelter met, the existence of a big gap between the poorest and richest is not a moral problem. Once basic needs are met, any difference in what wealth individuals have or don’t have is based on their individual contributions to society, and how others voluntarily exchange their labor and capital with others for their labor and capital.
There are economic factors that drive the largest wedge between the wealthy and poor. That factor is government getting in the middle and controlling who can and can’t freely exchange capital and labor. Compare income inequality from the 50’s to today. Compare government regulations from the 50’s to today. More government = more wealth inequality. Uber and Airbnb are prime examples of the problem with government. The government is trying to stop poor individuals from competing with big rich companies. You own a car or house and the government says that you can’t use your property to earn more wealth. The government is causing disproportionate wealth inequality. What business is it of the government if you let somebody use your spare bedroom for a night in exchange for $40. You and the person in your spare bedroom are voluntarily exchanging capital for use of private property, thus voluntarily transferring wealth. The government is saying that you must transfer that wealth to a big corporation that runs a hotel and cannot choose voluntarily to do so without government permission.
The inequality of wealth and income are only a moral failure of society if the poorest’ s basic needs aren’t met. Morally what most matters is if the rich got that way honestly. If the wealthy got rich morally and legally then the income gap is not a moral problem. Because the government is hindering individuals from using their labor and property to garner wealth and forcing others to use government approved cabs or hotels, rich cab companies, hotels, etc. are wealthy immorally.
Consider Uber, to drive a car you own you must have a license to drive, proving you can do so safely, and insurance to protect others in case you have an accident. So all uber drivers have proven to society that they can safely drive, and can cover the expenses if they do harm to others while driving. Why should there be any restrictions for that licensed and insured vehicle and person from offering their labor and property to another in exchange for their capital? One reason, to keep the poor, poor, and the rich, rich. The ruling elite want to control who has and doesn’t have wealth.
What is evil about a little old lady renting her spare bedroom out for a night, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about a college kid driving other students around for a fee, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about Hillary charging $200K to talk, how does that hurt the poor?
What the left refuses to do is recognize that the actions people take determine how others in society voluntarily reward them, or how society corporately punishes them. The biggest common factor in chronic poverty, persistent violent crime, and remaining impoverished is easily recognized. It is a common action (behavior) of those who are chronically impoverished in communities plagued with violent crime. It is not politically correct to speak it out loud.
There are noneconomic factors that make being poor permanent. These factors include not having a father in one's life, growing up with no family, no social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children. It is exceedingly rare for a married man and woman with kids to be persistently poor. A man and woman marrying may start out poor, but rarely do they as they have and raise children remain poor. Those noneconomic factors exist in greater quantity now for the same reason as the economic factors which create inequality of wealth. Too much government which rewards broken families, and punishes through wealth confiscation intact families.
The Evil of Wealth Disparity arises from the evil of Too Much Government. Freedom and Liberty in the past proved to be a fairer distributor of society’s wealth. However Freedom and Liberty have one basic problem that scare many. Liberty is not safe! With Liberty there is no guarantee that everything will turn out safe, that everybody will get a portion of what society offers based on their actions and contributions to society. As our society has become from feminized, the weaker, fairer sex, which values security over liberty, has continually traded liberty for security. As our Forefather Ben Franklin intoned, we now have neither liberty or security. The poor are not free to use their meager capital (a used car) to work their way from poverty, and as the tens of thousands of violent crime victims in Chicago can attest, they are no longer secure. All a result of Too Much Government. As polemist Thomas Paine so aptly put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Hearing the Democrat Debate, and the cry from progressives all over the social media, one thing is clear. They firmly believe that the inequality in wealth distribution in the USA is a moral evil. For some reason the left takes the idea that because “all men are created equal” that if they don’t share an equal portion of society’s wealth that somehow society is not treating them equally hence a society that does not have equal distribution of wealth is an evil society.
The left’s solution is to make the wealthy more poor, except for themselves. Hillary make $200K per speech, if she chose she could give a poor family $100K every time she speaks and help lift that family out of poverty and still take home $100K per speech. She obviously doesn’t actually believe in redistribution of her wealth. The question is how does Hillary Clinton making $200,000 per speech hurt the poor? What is morally wrong about Hillary charging as much as others are voluntarily willing to pay for speaking hurt the poor.
Obviously there is no moral problem with Hillary making mega bucks. What poor family can’t find a job because society choose to pay Hillary $200K for a few hours work? How did her highly paid speech writer, who earns a very good living, hurt the poor by voluntarily accepting a part of Hillary’s evil wealth in exchange for her labor hurt the poor? What moral dictum did Hillary violate earning millions of dollars from her political experience?
If because all people being created in God’s image have equal worth, thus deserve an equal share of society’s wealth, they why doesn’t a murderer, or rapist, or child molester deserve an equal share of society’s wealth? If their actions and impact on society don’t determine what wealth society should give them, what does? If you believe that their actions (murder, rape, child molestation), should result in society’s punishment, and exclusion (to protect others in society who behave acceptably), then you don’t believe everybody should receive the wealth of society equally, rather people should be punished, banished, or rewarded based on their actions in society.
If the poor have their basic material needs of food and shelter met, the existence of a big gap between the poorest and richest is not a moral problem. Once basic needs are met, any difference in what wealth individuals have or don’t have is based on their individual contributions to society, and how others voluntarily exchange their labor and capital with others for their labor and capital.
There are economic factors that drive the largest wedge between the wealthy and poor. That factor is government getting in the middle and controlling who can and can’t freely exchange capital and labor. Compare income inequality from the 50’s to today. Compare government regulations from the 50’s to today. More government = more wealth inequality. Uber and Airbnb are prime examples of the problem with government. The government is trying to stop poor individuals from competing with big rich companies. You own a car or house and the government says that you can’t use your property to earn more wealth. The government is causing disproportionate wealth inequality. What business is it of the government if you let somebody use your spare bedroom for a night in exchange for $40. You and the person in your spare bedroom are voluntarily exchanging capital for use of private property, thus voluntarily transferring wealth. The government is saying that you must transfer that wealth to a big corporation that runs a hotel and cannot choose voluntarily to do so without government permission.
The inequality of wealth and income are only a moral failure of society if the poorest’ s basic needs aren’t met. Morally what most matters is if the rich got that way honestly. If the wealthy got rich morally and legally then the income gap is not a moral problem. Because the government is hindering individuals from using their labor and property to garner wealth and forcing others to use government approved cabs or hotels, rich cab companies, hotels, etc. are wealthy immorally.
Consider Uber, to drive a car you own you must have a license to drive, proving you can do so safely, and insurance to protect others in case you have an accident. So all uber drivers have proven to society that they can safely drive, and can cover the expenses if they do harm to others while driving. Why should there be any restrictions for that licensed and insured vehicle and person from offering their labor and property to another in exchange for their capital? One reason, to keep the poor, poor, and the rich, rich. The ruling elite want to control who has and doesn’t have wealth.
What is evil about a little old lady renting her spare bedroom out for a night, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about a college kid driving other students around for a fee, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about Hillary charging $200K to talk, how does that hurt the poor?
What the left refuses to do is recognize that the actions people take determine how others in society voluntarily reward them, or how society corporately punishes them. The biggest common factor in chronic poverty, persistent violent crime, and remaining impoverished is easily recognized. It is a common action (behavior) of those who are chronically impoverished in communities plagued with violent crime. It is not politically correct to speak it out loud.
There are noneconomic factors that make being poor permanent. These factors include not having a father in one's life, growing up with no family, no social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children. It is exceedingly rare for a married man and woman with kids to be persistently poor. A man and woman marrying may start out poor, but rarely do they as they have and raise children remain poor. Those noneconomic factors exist in greater quantity now for the same reason as the economic factors which create inequality of wealth. Too much government which rewards broken families, and punishes through wealth confiscation intact families.
The Evil of Wealth Disparity arises from the evil of Too Much Government. Freedom and Liberty in the past proved to be a fairer distributor of society’s wealth. However Freedom and Liberty have one basic problem that scare many. Liberty is not safe! With Liberty there is no guarantee that everything will turn out safe, that everybody will get a portion of what society offers based on their actions and contributions to society. As our society has become from feminized, the weaker, fairer sex, which values security over liberty, has continually traded liberty for security. As our Forefather Ben Franklin intoned, we now have neither liberty or security. The poor are not free to use their meager capital (a used car) to work their way from poverty, and as the tens of thousands of violent crime victims in Chicago can attest, they are no longer secure. All a result of Too Much Government. As polemist Thomas Paine so aptly put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Friday, June 12, 2015
Actions of the Obama admin. prove the TPP is Bad for America.
By Tom Rhodes, 6/12/2015
Have you read about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)? This is major trade legislation that has something so rotten in it that it’s secret until it’s passed. The GOP is helping Obama pass the TPP. Most voting for it admit they've never read it. The text with full details of TPP are kept in a special guarded room. Why?
There is only one possible answer. There must be something buried in in the details that is very, very, very bad. They know if We the People knew what was in it, the outcry to our elected representatives would kill it.
What is in the TPP that is so rotten, that our elected representatives must sign an agreement not to tell us or even hint at what the trade agreement contains, before they are allowed to read the proposed trade agreement?
Whatever evil anti-American detail or details that exist in the Trans Pacific Partnership that is so terrible that We the People must be kept in the dark until it is a fait accompli. Our forefathers warned us and did not trust the government, even the one they created. Our government has proven to be unfaithful and liars. In as much as the government refuses to make a huge trade agreement public, we should urge all our elected representatives to vote against it. The TPP is a prime example of Obama’s promise to have “The most transparent administration in history.” That promise coupled with contradictory forced secrecy of the TPP are a clear indicator that the TPP is bad for America.
Have you read about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)? This is major trade legislation that has something so rotten in it that it’s secret until it’s passed. The GOP is helping Obama pass the TPP. Most voting for it admit they've never read it. The text with full details of TPP are kept in a special guarded room. Why?
There is only one possible answer. There must be something buried in in the details that is very, very, very bad. They know if We the People knew what was in it, the outcry to our elected representatives would kill it.
What is in the TPP that is so rotten, that our elected representatives must sign an agreement not to tell us or even hint at what the trade agreement contains, before they are allowed to read the proposed trade agreement?
Whatever evil anti-American detail or details that exist in the Trans Pacific Partnership that is so terrible that We the People must be kept in the dark until it is a fait accompli. Our forefathers warned us and did not trust the government, even the one they created. Our government has proven to be unfaithful and liars. In as much as the government refuses to make a huge trade agreement public, we should urge all our elected representatives to vote against it. The TPP is a prime example of Obama’s promise to have “The most transparent administration in history.” That promise coupled with contradictory forced secrecy of the TPP are a clear indicator that the TPP is bad for America.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Not Stealing = Giving
By Tom Rhodes, 4/20/2015
Emily Badger and Christopher Ingraham of the Washington post lament your tax dollars being given to the rich. They claim the rich get handouts just like the poor and list 10 of them. They are sick people. The entire premise is that all of the money anybody earns or saves is the governments, and we should be grateful for that portion of what you earn that you are allowed to keep, people keeping what they earn is the same as the government giving it to them.
Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for ethanol? Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for “geen” energy? Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for training your employees? Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for agribusiness? Does the list of handouts to the Wall Street Fat Cats include TARP bailouts? The answer is no, no, no, no, no, and no.
The list from the Washington post doesn’t include a single subsidy, or payment of the government to the rich. There are a gazillion examples of the government giving your money to the rich, but none of these examples show up on Badger and Ingraham’s list of where the riche “receive benefits from government.” Their list exclusively includes people being allowed to keep their own money. Let’s examine their list:
1. The mortgage interest deduction for big houses and second homes. - Just like your home or condo, any place you can live that you have mortgaged, the interest is tax deductable. The rich have bigger mortgages and thus pay more interest and have bigger deductions, but no different than anybody else. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as SNAP benefits to the poor.
2. The yacht tax deduction. - not really a deduction for the yacht, if the yacht is big enough to live on, and is mortgaged, the interest from the mortgage like any other living space is tax deductible. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as WIC benefits to the poor.
3. Rental property. - How is allowing the deduction the costs associated with maintaining some rental property; repairs, mortgage, HOA fees, advertising to get renters, property taxes etc. and only being taxed on the net profits you earn from renting out your property the same as the government giving you a direct cash benefit? The Washing Post’s opinion is that if you get money from a rental, all that money, regardless of the associated expenses associated should be subject to confiscation. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
4. Fancy business meals. - Take a potential client to dinner and you get to deduct half the cost from your taxable income, doesn’t matter if it’s McDonalds or Burn’s Steakhouse. The fact is it’s a business expense. The government doesn’t pay a single business to take clients or employees out for a meal and discuss business. Somehow not taxing half of those expenses they are calling a handout. Nobody’s tax dollars were sent to any business to wine and dine others. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
5. The capital gains tax rate. - basically the Post is saying, not paying double taxes is considered a handout. The “preferential” rate in the current system for capital gains is more accurately saying the second tax on your money is less than the rate it was originally taxed at. Even if you believe that savings and investments should be double taxed, it is still not a government handout. The government doesn’t give, the person whose savings earned some additional amount, any money. Clearly this is not the same as any benefits to the poor.
6. The estate tax. - Mom and Dad save and invest, paying all appropriate taxes as they do so, any excess that is in their property or savings has already been taxed, sometimes two or three times. Somehow Badger and Ingraham are saying that not taking more of Mom and Dad’s property after they die is the same as the government LIHEAP program, directly paying for a poor persons heating bill. This is not a handout to the rich, the money’s been taxed already excessively and the government isn’t actually giving the inheritors a dime. The government is just not taking as much of it as the Post thinks they should. Clearly the Estate Tax is not the same as any benefits to the poor.
7. Gambling loss deductions. - This one is really stupid, the government taxes you total winnings from gambling just like any other income. Unlike other ways of earning money, if you gamble and you lose more than you win, you cannot deduct your losses from your income. For some reason the Washington Post’s opinion is that if you gamble, all you winnings should be taxed, even if you are a loser overall, not just the amount you won over the amount you lost. Again they think the expenses associated with any gross earnings, rental, gambling, business expenses, should not be deductable. But . . . even if you think all winnings should be taxed, too bad for you if you lose, not taking money from someone (taxing) is not the same as taking money from somebody else and giving it to that someone. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
8. The Social Security earnings limit. - Social Security was sold and is still sold to the American people as a retirement insurance package with top limits on what it will pay out. Because it is limited as to what it will pay out, it also limits what you must pay in. Again the idea is that not taking money in excess of what is due is somehow equal to the government giving a handout. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
9. Retirement plans. - Badger and Ingraham’s claim that not taxing money saved for retirement until it is actually used is a subsidy is absurd. IRA’s 401K’s etc. are incentives to get people to save, so that they are less of a burden on society in their old age. The money is taxed, just at a later date. They are lamenting the fact that responsible people are not taxed twice. All these retirement programs do is delay when the government extracts its pound of flesh. Somehow they equate the fact that the rich save more for retirement than the poor as a subsidy. How is not taking the savings of people who responsibly plan for their old age the same as giving them a handout? Again the government isn’t giving the rich a dime, just delaying when they take the money. Clearly not the same as any direct benefit to the poor
10. Tax prep. - I don’t get this one, the government understands that they have made doing your own taxes so convoluted that without a professional it’s nearly impossible for the average person to do their own taxes. Thus they rightly allow you to deduct the costs associated with doing your taxes from your gross income, an expense to business and individual alike the government has created. So the income wasted on a government required expense is not taxable. The idea is that not paying taxes on the money spent doing taxes is a handout. Because the rich spend more on tax prep the Washington Post believes that it’s the equal to SSI (direct subsidies to the blind and disabled). The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
In summary the idea is that the government has the right to all the money everybody earns, rich or poor, and that the state allows people to keep a portion of what they earn, and redistributes the rest as the state determines it is best used. The Washington Post equates the state allowing people to keep what they earn the same as the state giving money to others. Somehow the government not taking earnings as the same as giving a special handout. The idea is that the state, not the laborer, investor, worker, retiree, has the right to all wealth, even savings, and the state not the individual determines who receives that wealth. Like I said, this is a sick idea, the idea that the Government not stealing your money is the same as the government giving you money.
A burglar comes into your home, and at the point of a gun, takes your TV, stereo, cash on hand, and other valuables. You file some paperwork with the burglar complaining that he took too much. After a few months he returns your TV. According to the Newspeak out of the Washington Post, this is the same as giving you a handout. Newspeak definiton, Not Stealing = Giving.
Emily Badger and Christopher Ingraham of the Washington post lament your tax dollars being given to the rich. They claim the rich get handouts just like the poor and list 10 of them. They are sick people. The entire premise is that all of the money anybody earns or saves is the governments, and we should be grateful for that portion of what you earn that you are allowed to keep, people keeping what they earn is the same as the government giving it to them.
Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for ethanol? Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for “geen” energy? Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for training your employees? Does the list of handouts to the rich include direct subsidies for agribusiness? Does the list of handouts to the Wall Street Fat Cats include TARP bailouts? The answer is no, no, no, no, no, and no.
The list from the Washington post doesn’t include a single subsidy, or payment of the government to the rich. There are a gazillion examples of the government giving your money to the rich, but none of these examples show up on Badger and Ingraham’s list of where the riche “receive benefits from government.” Their list exclusively includes people being allowed to keep their own money. Let’s examine their list:
1. The mortgage interest deduction for big houses and second homes. - Just like your home or condo, any place you can live that you have mortgaged, the interest is tax deductable. The rich have bigger mortgages and thus pay more interest and have bigger deductions, but no different than anybody else. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as SNAP benefits to the poor.
2. The yacht tax deduction. - not really a deduction for the yacht, if the yacht is big enough to live on, and is mortgaged, the interest from the mortgage like any other living space is tax deductible. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as WIC benefits to the poor.
3. Rental property. - How is allowing the deduction the costs associated with maintaining some rental property; repairs, mortgage, HOA fees, advertising to get renters, property taxes etc. and only being taxed on the net profits you earn from renting out your property the same as the government giving you a direct cash benefit? The Washing Post’s opinion is that if you get money from a rental, all that money, regardless of the associated expenses associated should be subject to confiscation. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
4. Fancy business meals. - Take a potential client to dinner and you get to deduct half the cost from your taxable income, doesn’t matter if it’s McDonalds or Burn’s Steakhouse. The fact is it’s a business expense. The government doesn’t pay a single business to take clients or employees out for a meal and discuss business. Somehow not taxing half of those expenses they are calling a handout. Nobody’s tax dollars were sent to any business to wine and dine others. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
5. The capital gains tax rate. - basically the Post is saying, not paying double taxes is considered a handout. The “preferential” rate in the current system for capital gains is more accurately saying the second tax on your money is less than the rate it was originally taxed at. Even if you believe that savings and investments should be double taxed, it is still not a government handout. The government doesn’t give, the person whose savings earned some additional amount, any money. Clearly this is not the same as any benefits to the poor.
6. The estate tax. - Mom and Dad save and invest, paying all appropriate taxes as they do so, any excess that is in their property or savings has already been taxed, sometimes two or three times. Somehow Badger and Ingraham are saying that not taking more of Mom and Dad’s property after they die is the same as the government LIHEAP program, directly paying for a poor persons heating bill. This is not a handout to the rich, the money’s been taxed already excessively and the government isn’t actually giving the inheritors a dime. The government is just not taking as much of it as the Post thinks they should. Clearly the Estate Tax is not the same as any benefits to the poor.
7. Gambling loss deductions. - This one is really stupid, the government taxes you total winnings from gambling just like any other income. Unlike other ways of earning money, if you gamble and you lose more than you win, you cannot deduct your losses from your income. For some reason the Washington Post’s opinion is that if you gamble, all you winnings should be taxed, even if you are a loser overall, not just the amount you won over the amount you lost. Again they think the expenses associated with any gross earnings, rental, gambling, business expenses, should not be deductable. But . . . even if you think all winnings should be taxed, too bad for you if you lose, not taking money from someone (taxing) is not the same as taking money from somebody else and giving it to that someone. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
8. The Social Security earnings limit. - Social Security was sold and is still sold to the American people as a retirement insurance package with top limits on what it will pay out. Because it is limited as to what it will pay out, it also limits what you must pay in. Again the idea is that not taking money in excess of what is due is somehow equal to the government giving a handout. The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
9. Retirement plans. - Badger and Ingraham’s claim that not taxing money saved for retirement until it is actually used is a subsidy is absurd. IRA’s 401K’s etc. are incentives to get people to save, so that they are less of a burden on society in their old age. The money is taxed, just at a later date. They are lamenting the fact that responsible people are not taxed twice. All these retirement programs do is delay when the government extracts its pound of flesh. Somehow they equate the fact that the rich save more for retirement than the poor as a subsidy. How is not taking the savings of people who responsibly plan for their old age the same as giving them a handout? Again the government isn’t giving the rich a dime, just delaying when they take the money. Clearly not the same as any direct benefit to the poor
10. Tax prep. - I don’t get this one, the government understands that they have made doing your own taxes so convoluted that without a professional it’s nearly impossible for the average person to do their own taxes. Thus they rightly allow you to deduct the costs associated with doing your taxes from your gross income, an expense to business and individual alike the government has created. So the income wasted on a government required expense is not taxable. The idea is that not paying taxes on the money spent doing taxes is a handout. Because the rich spend more on tax prep the Washington Post believes that it’s the equal to SSI (direct subsidies to the blind and disabled). The government isn't giving money, just not taking it, clearly not the same as any benefits to the poor.
In summary the idea is that the government has the right to all the money everybody earns, rich or poor, and that the state allows people to keep a portion of what they earn, and redistributes the rest as the state determines it is best used. The Washington Post equates the state allowing people to keep what they earn the same as the state giving money to others. Somehow the government not taking earnings as the same as giving a special handout. The idea is that the state, not the laborer, investor, worker, retiree, has the right to all wealth, even savings, and the state not the individual determines who receives that wealth. Like I said, this is a sick idea, the idea that the Government not stealing your money is the same as the government giving you money.
A burglar comes into your home, and at the point of a gun, takes your TV, stereo, cash on hand, and other valuables. You file some paperwork with the burglar complaining that he took too much. After a few months he returns your TV. According to the Newspeak out of the Washington Post, this is the same as giving you a handout. Newspeak definiton, Not Stealing = Giving.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Reality is Meaningless
Reality is Meaningless
By Tom Rhodes, 4/16/2015
The sad fact is all the objective truth, scientific data, observable facts are meaningless. Reality has no meaning. Only how people feel and how they can use those feelings to gather power to a few ruling elite have any meaning in American Politics. What’s going to happen when everybody starts playing by the rules of reality used by the left?
Take the fact quoted by leftists and feminists that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in college. Just because Eric Holder’s Justice department released a study of nearly the past decade of crime statistics, finding that 0.61 percent of college students are victims of sexual assault. Do some simple math and reality is that 3 in 500 not 1 in 5 is the truth. But as the NYTimes noted, even though the frat boys didn’t actually rape the girl, here mere accusation is proof of a rape culture. The reality doesn’t matter.
How about another the fact quoted by leftists and feminists, that women earn 23% less than men for the same work. Obama’s Department of Labor in 2009, concluded that “The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” Obama’s Department of Labor in 2009 also carefully based on reality and objective truth recommended that “the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action.” The truth, in fact reality, is meaningless; women must be given preferential treatment based on the perceived bias, the reality is meaningless.
Age is meaningless, with Viagra, plastic surgery, etc. you can look and pretend you’re in your 20’s long past your prime. Reality is meaningless.
Reality and climate change don’t matter. In the past century average temperatures climbed until the 1930’s, dropped until the late 70’s, climbed again until the late 90’s, and have been stead for about the two decades. All that time CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have steadily increased. The real measurable truth is that regardless of the CO2 produced by man the climate has changed. None of the computer models saying man has caused climate changed have been correct. But the measurable, observable, truth is meaningless. Man is causing climate change reality is meaningless.
Tax season so the news if full of tax data. The WSJ had an article titled, "Top 20 Percent of Earners Pay 84 Percent of Income Tax." The author, Laura Saunders provides a different perspective than we are used to hearing regarding who pays what income taxes, noting, "The three million people in the top 1 percent of earners pay nearly half the income tax." The reality is our system is far more progressive than leftists would have you believe. The reality that the rich pay more than their fair share is meaningless, just ask President Obama.
Let’s talk about sex. The testable , observable, fact, reality, is that people are born either male or female, you either have to X’s or and XY. That however is meaningless, how you feel about your sex takes precedence over reality. Reality is meaningless. In fact if a man “feels” like a woman he’s entitled to use the woman’s showers, restrooms, etc. Even have his driver’s license labeled as female. Reality is meaningless.
OK – if we are a nation of laws, and treat everybody equally than how anybody feels is more important than reality. What if non-leftists decided to play by these rules instead of reality?
I’m a married middle aged white male, so vanilla it’s scary. What if I choose to play by the new rules and throw reality out the window. Since testable, observable truth is meaningless, I may as well take advantage of the new rules. I truly “feel” like I’m a poor black woman with 5 kids, in as much as that’s how I feel, and reality is meaningless, I’m eligible and should be allowed to supplement my income with welfare, and get preferential hiring for a government job. If our leaders and government can and do routinely ignore reality when it suits them, why can’t I. I “feel” as though I have 25 dependents, why can’t I claim them on my taxes, reality doesn’t matter, how I “feel” does.
Why can’t I take advantage of loans, programs, and benefits that minorities and women get, if feel like a minority woman? The left made the rules that say reality doesn’t matter, I “feel” like an oppressed minority woman, that’s what matters. From now on, any government paperwork that asks and/or requires I enter my sex and race, I’m picking female and black; and why not those are the same rules the government uses when telling me about people paying their fair share of taxes, or who can use what bathrooms, or crime statistics, or science. What the government wants, or “feels,” the answer should be is what they tell me, reality is meaningless.
By Tom Rhodes, 4/16/2015
The sad fact is all the objective truth, scientific data, observable facts are meaningless. Reality has no meaning. Only how people feel and how they can use those feelings to gather power to a few ruling elite have any meaning in American Politics. What’s going to happen when everybody starts playing by the rules of reality used by the left?
Take the fact quoted by leftists and feminists that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in college. Just because Eric Holder’s Justice department released a study of nearly the past decade of crime statistics, finding that 0.61 percent of college students are victims of sexual assault. Do some simple math and reality is that 3 in 500 not 1 in 5 is the truth. But as the NYTimes noted, even though the frat boys didn’t actually rape the girl, here mere accusation is proof of a rape culture. The reality doesn’t matter.
How about another the fact quoted by leftists and feminists, that women earn 23% less than men for the same work. Obama’s Department of Labor in 2009, concluded that “The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” Obama’s Department of Labor in 2009 also carefully based on reality and objective truth recommended that “the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action.” The truth, in fact reality, is meaningless; women must be given preferential treatment based on the perceived bias, the reality is meaningless.
Age is meaningless, with Viagra, plastic surgery, etc. you can look and pretend you’re in your 20’s long past your prime. Reality is meaningless.
Reality and climate change don’t matter. In the past century average temperatures climbed until the 1930’s, dropped until the late 70’s, climbed again until the late 90’s, and have been stead for about the two decades. All that time CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have steadily increased. The real measurable truth is that regardless of the CO2 produced by man the climate has changed. None of the computer models saying man has caused climate changed have been correct. But the measurable, observable, truth is meaningless. Man is causing climate change reality is meaningless.
Tax season so the news if full of tax data. The WSJ had an article titled, "Top 20 Percent of Earners Pay 84 Percent of Income Tax." The author, Laura Saunders provides a different perspective than we are used to hearing regarding who pays what income taxes, noting, "The three million people in the top 1 percent of earners pay nearly half the income tax." The reality is our system is far more progressive than leftists would have you believe. The reality that the rich pay more than their fair share is meaningless, just ask President Obama.
Let’s talk about sex. The testable , observable, fact, reality, is that people are born either male or female, you either have to X’s or and XY. That however is meaningless, how you feel about your sex takes precedence over reality. Reality is meaningless. In fact if a man “feels” like a woman he’s entitled to use the woman’s showers, restrooms, etc. Even have his driver’s license labeled as female. Reality is meaningless.
OK – if we are a nation of laws, and treat everybody equally than how anybody feels is more important than reality. What if non-leftists decided to play by these rules instead of reality?
I’m a married middle aged white male, so vanilla it’s scary. What if I choose to play by the new rules and throw reality out the window. Since testable, observable truth is meaningless, I may as well take advantage of the new rules. I truly “feel” like I’m a poor black woman with 5 kids, in as much as that’s how I feel, and reality is meaningless, I’m eligible and should be allowed to supplement my income with welfare, and get preferential hiring for a government job. If our leaders and government can and do routinely ignore reality when it suits them, why can’t I. I “feel” as though I have 25 dependents, why can’t I claim them on my taxes, reality doesn’t matter, how I “feel” does.
Why can’t I take advantage of loans, programs, and benefits that minorities and women get, if feel like a minority woman? The left made the rules that say reality doesn’t matter, I “feel” like an oppressed minority woman, that’s what matters. From now on, any government paperwork that asks and/or requires I enter my sex and race, I’m picking female and black; and why not those are the same rules the government uses when telling me about people paying their fair share of taxes, or who can use what bathrooms, or crime statistics, or science. What the government wants, or “feels,” the answer should be is what they tell me, reality is meaningless.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Is This Legit?
By Pete Blome, 4/5/2015
As a citizen, a veteran, and someone who has been interested in how our Republic is governed for my whole life, I have to ask a hard question. Is government, in general, losing its legitimacy in the USA?
Legitimacy is about trust. As a people, we trust that, overall, the government is acting in our best interest. Trust is hard to win and easy to lose.
Responsible leaders know the importance of maintaining legitimacy. Government by its nature is force, and when people see force at work in all its ugliness they need to know, at a gut level, that it is being used for good things. If it is used for bad things it gets very hard for the average, decent person to tolerate government. People refuse. Taxes don’t get paid. Sacred cows get gored. Responsible leaders are supposed to speak up when going-along to-get-along goes too far and leads to a lack of trust.
But are they? The key to legitimate government in America should still be about protecting individual rights, free markets and a limited government. It’s these qualities that made America worth living in. This country grew into an economic and military giant because they lead to prosperity. If legitimacy is now based on government buying people off, as the cynical would say, we are certainly headed for a crash. “You can’t buy permanent friends with free candy.”
Individual rights are now considered secondary to other needs. Consider the Federal level alone. Instead of free speech, we have “free speech zones.” Political competition is restricted by laws that embed only two political parties in power. Congress wrote a law that forces everyone to buy medical insurance. President Bush actually advocated eliminating Habeas Corpus. President Obama proposed eliminating ammunition for the most popular type of rifle in private hands. The SCOTUS ruled way back in 1942 that the Federal government can control what a person legally makes, mines, or grows on his own property for his own use, even if no one else is involved. In order to use commercial travel, a person must get permission from the DHS first or they will not be allowed to go, no judge, jury or public evidence involved. The TSA routinely ignores the Fourth Amendment. Intelligence agencies are spying on us, and they have publicly apologized to lying about that in sworn testimony to Congress. Police departments can legally use civil confiscation to take property without charges or even evidence of guilt. When did we become a country where our rights are protected by the Constitution, but only if we don’t actually want to use them?
America is the land of the managed market. A free market is based on voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The tax code, the creation of our dollars, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the minimum wage, bank and corporate bailouts, business regulation, government control of education, utility and infrastructure monopolies, licenses, permits, zoning, affirmative action, agricultural subsidies, and the massive government bureaucracy all depend on the idea some citizens should have privileges over other citizens in the law. Besides being unjust, this idea makes for higher costs, less choice and poorer quality. Today, the invisible hand of the free market has been replaced by a very visible thumb on the market scales. As the Roman Senator Tacitus said, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.”
Finally, it is hard to claim our government is limited in its power when both Presidents Bush and Obama have assassinated U.S. citizens abroad without a trial or even presentation of evidence. Our government actually authorized torture. This is such nonsense since they can no more authorize torture than they can authorize rape or slavery. No higher functionary in government, no matter how guilty, is going to jail.
These are more than ugly trends. They are a bad way to govern. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, they make people think “Why should I put up with this?”
When they finally answer that they won’t, that is when the real problems begin.
Pete Blome is a retired military officer, Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party, and At-Large Representative of the Libertarian Party of Florida
As a citizen, a veteran, and someone who has been interested in how our Republic is governed for my whole life, I have to ask a hard question. Is government, in general, losing its legitimacy in the USA?
Legitimacy is about trust. As a people, we trust that, overall, the government is acting in our best interest. Trust is hard to win and easy to lose.
Responsible leaders know the importance of maintaining legitimacy. Government by its nature is force, and when people see force at work in all its ugliness they need to know, at a gut level, that it is being used for good things. If it is used for bad things it gets very hard for the average, decent person to tolerate government. People refuse. Taxes don’t get paid. Sacred cows get gored. Responsible leaders are supposed to speak up when going-along to-get-along goes too far and leads to a lack of trust.
But are they? The key to legitimate government in America should still be about protecting individual rights, free markets and a limited government. It’s these qualities that made America worth living in. This country grew into an economic and military giant because they lead to prosperity. If legitimacy is now based on government buying people off, as the cynical would say, we are certainly headed for a crash. “You can’t buy permanent friends with free candy.”
Individual rights are now considered secondary to other needs. Consider the Federal level alone. Instead of free speech, we have “free speech zones.” Political competition is restricted by laws that embed only two political parties in power. Congress wrote a law that forces everyone to buy medical insurance. President Bush actually advocated eliminating Habeas Corpus. President Obama proposed eliminating ammunition for the most popular type of rifle in private hands. The SCOTUS ruled way back in 1942 that the Federal government can control what a person legally makes, mines, or grows on his own property for his own use, even if no one else is involved. In order to use commercial travel, a person must get permission from the DHS first or they will not be allowed to go, no judge, jury or public evidence involved. The TSA routinely ignores the Fourth Amendment. Intelligence agencies are spying on us, and they have publicly apologized to lying about that in sworn testimony to Congress. Police departments can legally use civil confiscation to take property without charges or even evidence of guilt. When did we become a country where our rights are protected by the Constitution, but only if we don’t actually want to use them?
America is the land of the managed market. A free market is based on voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The tax code, the creation of our dollars, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the minimum wage, bank and corporate bailouts, business regulation, government control of education, utility and infrastructure monopolies, licenses, permits, zoning, affirmative action, agricultural subsidies, and the massive government bureaucracy all depend on the idea some citizens should have privileges over other citizens in the law. Besides being unjust, this idea makes for higher costs, less choice and poorer quality. Today, the invisible hand of the free market has been replaced by a very visible thumb on the market scales. As the Roman Senator Tacitus said, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.”
Finally, it is hard to claim our government is limited in its power when both Presidents Bush and Obama have assassinated U.S. citizens abroad without a trial or even presentation of evidence. Our government actually authorized torture. This is such nonsense since they can no more authorize torture than they can authorize rape or slavery. No higher functionary in government, no matter how guilty, is going to jail.
These are more than ugly trends. They are a bad way to govern. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, they make people think “Why should I put up with this?”
When they finally answer that they won’t, that is when the real problems begin.
Pete Blome is a retired military officer, Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party, and At-Large Representative of the Libertarian Party of Florida
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The Trial of Adrian Wyllie
by Pete Blome, 3/10/2015
On March the 2nd, 2015, in a sparsely filled Collier County Florida Courtroom, Adrian Wyllie, the recent Libertarian candidate for Florida Governor, stood at the defense podium. He had no entourage or throng of supporters. This was his third appearance before judges on the matter of driving without a license. He refused to succumb to the invasive questioning required by the Real ID Act and have his personal information added to a national database without a warrant simply to get the privilege of a state issued driver’s license.
The details of Adrian’s civil disobedience did not impress the judge. He quickly cut short the defense presentation. The court would not listen to the violations of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions that inspired Adrian to stand alone, nor would it record the finely worded arguments of his lawyer. No one in the court would hear how the law robbed them of privacy or how the tentacles of surveillance were spreading throughout their lives. The recent years of sweat, worry, and sacrifice would come down to a few perfunctory words from a county judge.
He found him guilty. The judge said he applauded the defendant for his principles, and levied a $150 fine. Whether the judge was genuinely trying to enforce the law, victimize him, condescend to him, or simply following the path of legal least resistance, is anyone’s guess. It could have been worse. As a three time loser Adrian could easily have gone to jail.
A small matter in a small court about small people. It never would have happened at all except for Adrian’s persistent love of liberty. He thinks liberty is what makes living in the USA worthwhile. He wants others to feel as he does.
Unlike most of us, the cost of that love has been very real for him. Not having a driver’s license has limited his life in ways most of us do not even think about. He has court costs that he must pay out of pocket.
His business suffers. A simple trip to the bank becomes a convoluted task of proving one’s identity. Renting a vehicle becomes impossible.
Every drive to the store could result in trading in a comfortable night
at home for a cold cell in the county jail. Worry became a part of
his, and his family’s, way of life. He was jabbed by society in general in a dozen unseen ways every day for not having his papers. Still, he stuck to it.
To some, that was a foolish thing to do. Why suffer over this? Is defying the Real ID Act worth it? Since Adrian was active politically wouldn’t he do better moving as a free man than hobbled by self-imposed restrictions? The comfortable would say there are better ways of getting the point across without sacrifice. For them, we can live our lives, and can go home feeling secure in the knowledge we are free and have value. However, the contrast between the national myth and the reality is getting greater. What Adrian Wyllie shows is that we have the protection of the Bill of Rights, it seems, until we actually want to use them.
He still faces an uncertain future with real consequences. The legal penalties for defying the law will only become greater from this point on, and he has to decide what his next step will be. For every “Patrick Henry” that actually affects change there are dozens of unknown names that stood alone in courtrooms, like Collier County, and were consumed by the legal system no matter what protections citizens are supposed to have. Do the comfortable really know, or care, what happens to these people? Probably not. It’s not right, but that is just the way it is.
Good on you, Adrian, for going through all of this for the sake of
liberty. As Churchill once said, success is never final, and failure
never fatal, it is courage that counts.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and attended the trial of Adrian Wyllie 2 March.
On March the 2nd, 2015, in a sparsely filled Collier County Florida Courtroom, Adrian Wyllie, the recent Libertarian candidate for Florida Governor, stood at the defense podium. He had no entourage or throng of supporters. This was his third appearance before judges on the matter of driving without a license. He refused to succumb to the invasive questioning required by the Real ID Act and have his personal information added to a national database without a warrant simply to get the privilege of a state issued driver’s license.
The details of Adrian’s civil disobedience did not impress the judge. He quickly cut short the defense presentation. The court would not listen to the violations of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions that inspired Adrian to stand alone, nor would it record the finely worded arguments of his lawyer. No one in the court would hear how the law robbed them of privacy or how the tentacles of surveillance were spreading throughout their lives. The recent years of sweat, worry, and sacrifice would come down to a few perfunctory words from a county judge.
He found him guilty. The judge said he applauded the defendant for his principles, and levied a $150 fine. Whether the judge was genuinely trying to enforce the law, victimize him, condescend to him, or simply following the path of legal least resistance, is anyone’s guess. It could have been worse. As a three time loser Adrian could easily have gone to jail.
A small matter in a small court about small people. It never would have happened at all except for Adrian’s persistent love of liberty. He thinks liberty is what makes living in the USA worthwhile. He wants others to feel as he does.
Unlike most of us, the cost of that love has been very real for him. Not having a driver’s license has limited his life in ways most of us do not even think about. He has court costs that he must pay out of pocket.
His business suffers. A simple trip to the bank becomes a convoluted task of proving one’s identity. Renting a vehicle becomes impossible.
Every drive to the store could result in trading in a comfortable night
at home for a cold cell in the county jail. Worry became a part of
his, and his family’s, way of life. He was jabbed by society in general in a dozen unseen ways every day for not having his papers. Still, he stuck to it.
To some, that was a foolish thing to do. Why suffer over this? Is defying the Real ID Act worth it? Since Adrian was active politically wouldn’t he do better moving as a free man than hobbled by self-imposed restrictions? The comfortable would say there are better ways of getting the point across without sacrifice. For them, we can live our lives, and can go home feeling secure in the knowledge we are free and have value. However, the contrast between the national myth and the reality is getting greater. What Adrian Wyllie shows is that we have the protection of the Bill of Rights, it seems, until we actually want to use them.
He still faces an uncertain future with real consequences. The legal penalties for defying the law will only become greater from this point on, and he has to decide what his next step will be. For every “Patrick Henry” that actually affects change there are dozens of unknown names that stood alone in courtrooms, like Collier County, and were consumed by the legal system no matter what protections citizens are supposed to have. Do the comfortable really know, or care, what happens to these people? Probably not. It’s not right, but that is just the way it is.
Good on you, Adrian, for going through all of this for the sake of
liberty. As Churchill once said, success is never final, and failure
never fatal, it is courage that counts.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and attended the trial of Adrian Wyllie 2 March.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Republicans and Democrats Represent Parties of Violence
By Tom Rhodes, 12/12/2014
America is so Overcriminalized the government as controlled by the violent combination of Democrats and Republicans now routinely kills innocent citizens. Both parties lust for power, and are willing to use violence against the American people to keep and maintain that power. Neither party exists to complete the mission statement and purpose for which we the people instituted a government. George Will correctly characterized how the lust for using violence that both parties share has changed our government saying, “American government is increasingly characterized by an ugly and sometimes lethal irresponsibility.”
At one time our society was just, not perfect, but at least we ascribed to the goals of justice and the rule of law. Both ideas have been abandoned by both the Democrats and Republicans, ignoring the wise words of our forefathers and the principles this nation was founded. When we had a just society we had few laws, and those laws were easy to understand and they focused on protecting life, liberty, and property. Today it is impossible for any person to understand much less know all the laws that they are ruled by, much less abide by all of them. Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School explains the legal reality that now exists in America:
One thing is clear and proven by the hundreds of people killed every year by the police, any law that comes with a fine or possibility of arrest, the government is saying do as we dictate or we will kill you. Laws and government are force, and the threat of violent force and death is what backs up the law. Ask Mr. Garner, who is now dead, because the Democrats and Republicans created laws that said selling cigarettes without collecting the appropriate tax is illegal, and failure to do so we will send armed men, with the authority to kill you, to force you to comply. Why does NY put such a huge tax on cigarettes that it is estimated that 70% of cigarettes in NY were obtained on the black market? Because they think smoking is bad for you and want to change your behavior and punish you if you don’t do what they think is best. They are willing to kill you, if you try to avoid paying their punishment for not behaving as they dictate is in your best interest.
The government wants to control you and your choices. To enforce punitive taxes on tobacco products, the government is willing to kill you. Oh they will say it’s not breaking the tobacco tax law that got Garner killed, it’s resisting arrest. That makes it worse, the fact that you won’t accept the government control, and would dare resist the government controlling your voluntary actions is grounds for you death. It was the cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest.
Do a quick Youtube search and you can find hundreds of videos of police beating up people who would dare question their authority. Mention your constitutional rights, like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to remain silent, freedom to travel, and you are likely to be detained and assaulted for “resisting arrest.”
You law and order Republicans, you’re violent statists who are willing to have kill people to enforce your ideas on how people ought to live. You think people who choose to take drugs for recreational purposes are so evil that the government should control their actions, and if they resist the government control of their voluntary actions the government should use force, up to and including killing such individual if they don’t submit to the government. The difference between a Republican and most libertarians is that although both generally dislike recreational drugs, and think that recreational drug use is not a wise idea, libertarians are not willing to let someone else get killed because they have a different perspective.
Uber liberal, socialist, and statist, Barney Frank in 2009 said, "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society." That of course was Democrat Hyperbole. He voted to make it illegal for you to use the light bulb of your choice, voted to limit free speech over the internet, voted for more government regulations on what you can and can’t eat, cosponsored laws giving the government more oversight in tobacco products, voted against retailers being allowed to set their own prices, and is famous for voting to control who banks must lend money. Obvioulsy he like most Democrats talks about people being allowed to make their own choices, so long as those are the choices he approves, otherwise he is quite willing to send armed government officials to force you to capitulate, and who have the authority to kill you if you refuse.
The actions of both the Democrats and Republicans clearly demonstrate they are OK with using the violent force to dictate that you live the way they think is best, and have opted for trying to control you through violence or the threat of violence. If you think that isn’t true, ask yourself why the BLM needs to be armed and have massive amounts of weapons and ammo? Why does the Dept. of Education, Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human Service, Department of Interior, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Railroad Retirement Board, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, need armed need armed law enforcement officers? The answer is clear, they are willing to use the threat of violence and even kill the people to enforce the rules and regulations of those departments.
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has armed officers.
Democrats and Republicans so want to rule over everybody, they’ve created and armed a zillion Departments of Whatever. Anybody’s failure to comply with the hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations can, and often does, result in violent force used to rule over everybody. Republicans and Democrats have proven the are willing to risk the lives of their fellow citizens to get their own way, they make all sorts of things illegal, and authorize the use of force up to and including killing citizens who fail to capitulate.
Are you willing to allow the government the right to kill other citizens who don’t share you’re belief that people shouldn’t do recreational drugs?
Are you willing to stand by and let another person die at the hands of the government, because they choose to bet playing cards?
Do you think someone should lose his life because he offered to pay for sex? Do you think a person who takes money in exchange for sex should die at the hands of government? I think prostitution is wrong, it’s bad for both the prostitute and the solicitor, but it’s a voluntary exchange and I don’t think I have a right controlling how others live. Because I think it’s wrong, I am personally boycotting prostitutes and urge others to do the same. What I don’t do is threaten others by saying I’ll send people authorized to use force and punish you if you choose purchase or sell sex. If you support laws that make prostitution illegal you are saying that you are willing to kill people who are willing to refuse to accept your control of their sex lives.
The ruling elite, be they Republicans and Democrats, want to control you and your life. They have proven willing to hire, train, and arm people and send them to force you to comply, they have authorized those people to kill you if you fail to comply. Sell loosies on the streets of NY, you could get dead. It’s a shame so many are willing to use violence to control how others live.
Ask yourself these question about any law: Does this law make a voluntary choice of an individual that has no direct effect on the rights of another a crime? If someone refuses to obey a law, should the government have the authority to use violent force to enforce it, even killing those who refuse to obey? If you can’t answer yes to both questions you should oppose the law, and demand it be repealed.
America is so Overcriminalized the government as controlled by the violent combination of Democrats and Republicans now routinely kills innocent citizens. Both parties lust for power, and are willing to use violence against the American people to keep and maintain that power. Neither party exists to complete the mission statement and purpose for which we the people instituted a government. George Will correctly characterized how the lust for using violence that both parties share has changed our government saying, “American government is increasingly characterized by an ugly and sometimes lethal irresponsibility.”
At one time our society was just, not perfect, but at least we ascribed to the goals of justice and the rule of law. Both ideas have been abandoned by both the Democrats and Republicans, ignoring the wise words of our forefathers and the principles this nation was founded. When we had a just society we had few laws, and those laws were easy to understand and they focused on protecting life, liberty, and property. Today it is impossible for any person to understand much less know all the laws that they are ruled by, much less abide by all of them. Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School explains the legal reality that now exists in America:
…federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes, fewer than half of which found in the Federal Criminal Code. The rest are scattered through other statutes. A citizen who wants to abide by the law has no quick and easy way to find out what the law actually is — a violation of the traditional principle that the state cannot punish without fair notice. In addition to these statutes, he writes, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations may be enforceable through criminal punishment in the discretion of an administrative agency. Nobody knows the number for sure. Husak cites estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. …making an offense criminal also means that the police will go armed to enforce it. Overcriminalization matters… Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. …Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
One thing is clear and proven by the hundreds of people killed every year by the police, any law that comes with a fine or possibility of arrest, the government is saying do as we dictate or we will kill you. Laws and government are force, and the threat of violent force and death is what backs up the law. Ask Mr. Garner, who is now dead, because the Democrats and Republicans created laws that said selling cigarettes without collecting the appropriate tax is illegal, and failure to do so we will send armed men, with the authority to kill you, to force you to comply. Why does NY put such a huge tax on cigarettes that it is estimated that 70% of cigarettes in NY were obtained on the black market? Because they think smoking is bad for you and want to change your behavior and punish you if you don’t do what they think is best. They are willing to kill you, if you try to avoid paying their punishment for not behaving as they dictate is in your best interest.
The government wants to control you and your choices. To enforce punitive taxes on tobacco products, the government is willing to kill you. Oh they will say it’s not breaking the tobacco tax law that got Garner killed, it’s resisting arrest. That makes it worse, the fact that you won’t accept the government control, and would dare resist the government controlling your voluntary actions is grounds for you death. It was the cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest.
Do a quick Youtube search and you can find hundreds of videos of police beating up people who would dare question their authority. Mention your constitutional rights, like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to remain silent, freedom to travel, and you are likely to be detained and assaulted for “resisting arrest.”
You law and order Republicans, you’re violent statists who are willing to have kill people to enforce your ideas on how people ought to live. You think people who choose to take drugs for recreational purposes are so evil that the government should control their actions, and if they resist the government control of their voluntary actions the government should use force, up to and including killing such individual if they don’t submit to the government. The difference between a Republican and most libertarians is that although both generally dislike recreational drugs, and think that recreational drug use is not a wise idea, libertarians are not willing to let someone else get killed because they have a different perspective.
Uber liberal, socialist, and statist, Barney Frank in 2009 said, "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society." That of course was Democrat Hyperbole. He voted to make it illegal for you to use the light bulb of your choice, voted to limit free speech over the internet, voted for more government regulations on what you can and can’t eat, cosponsored laws giving the government more oversight in tobacco products, voted against retailers being allowed to set their own prices, and is famous for voting to control who banks must lend money. Obvioulsy he like most Democrats talks about people being allowed to make their own choices, so long as those are the choices he approves, otherwise he is quite willing to send armed government officials to force you to capitulate, and who have the authority to kill you if you refuse.
The actions of both the Democrats and Republicans clearly demonstrate they are OK with using the violent force to dictate that you live the way they think is best, and have opted for trying to control you through violence or the threat of violence. If you think that isn’t true, ask yourself why the BLM needs to be armed and have massive amounts of weapons and ammo? Why does the Dept. of Education, Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human Service, Department of Interior, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Railroad Retirement Board, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, need armed need armed law enforcement officers? The answer is clear, they are willing to use the threat of violence and even kill the people to enforce the rules and regulations of those departments.
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has armed officers.
Democrats and Republicans so want to rule over everybody, they’ve created and armed a zillion Departments of Whatever. Anybody’s failure to comply with the hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations can, and often does, result in violent force used to rule over everybody. Republicans and Democrats have proven the are willing to risk the lives of their fellow citizens to get their own way, they make all sorts of things illegal, and authorize the use of force up to and including killing citizens who fail to capitulate.
Are you willing to allow the government the right to kill other citizens who don’t share you’re belief that people shouldn’t do recreational drugs?
Are you willing to stand by and let another person die at the hands of the government, because they choose to bet playing cards?
Do you think someone should lose his life because he offered to pay for sex? Do you think a person who takes money in exchange for sex should die at the hands of government? I think prostitution is wrong, it’s bad for both the prostitute and the solicitor, but it’s a voluntary exchange and I don’t think I have a right controlling how others live. Because I think it’s wrong, I am personally boycotting prostitutes and urge others to do the same. What I don’t do is threaten others by saying I’ll send people authorized to use force and punish you if you choose purchase or sell sex. If you support laws that make prostitution illegal you are saying that you are willing to kill people who are willing to refuse to accept your control of their sex lives.
The ruling elite, be they Republicans and Democrats, want to control you and your life. They have proven willing to hire, train, and arm people and send them to force you to comply, they have authorized those people to kill you if you fail to comply. Sell loosies on the streets of NY, you could get dead. It’s a shame so many are willing to use violence to control how others live.
Ask yourself these question about any law: Does this law make a voluntary choice of an individual that has no direct effect on the rights of another a crime? If someone refuses to obey a law, should the government have the authority to use violent force to enforce it, even killing those who refuse to obey? If you can’t answer yes to both questions you should oppose the law, and demand it be repealed.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Jimmy Carter Ended at Least One Monarchy
By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2014
At Least one of the action of Jimmy Carter can be attributed to ending an monarchy. It was Jimmy Carter’s administration ending the prohibition of home brewed beer, that eventually lead to the rebirth of brewing in the USA. Prior to prohibition there were around 2000 breweries in the USA. In the roaring 20’s that number became zero. Today the number is now over 3000.
The monarchy that has been taken down is none other than the King of Beers, Budweiser. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the craft beer craze, (AKA free and open markets), crowded Budweiser out of the top spot and is now down to 7.6% of the beer market, half its market share from a year ago. “Young drinkers aren’t the reason Budweiser volumes have declined in the U.S. for 25 years, from its nearly 50-million-barrel peak in 1988 to 16 million barrels last year. . . . Some 44% of 21- to 27-year-old drinkers today have never tried Budweiser”
OK, once we realized prohibition was a bad idea, we still had an overzealous government. The post-prohibition restrictions made it all but impossible for small breweries to operate. By the late 70’s there were fewer than 100 breweries.
Starting with Carter ending prohibition of home brew, there were a series of Regan initiatives that swept away ridiculous government regulatory burdens that benefitted no one except Big Beer and their taste killing, lowest-common-denominator approach.
The fact is without draconian government regulation that supported big beer, the market has exploded. Free markets always result in the consumer having more choice over a wide range of offerings. When it comes to beer, we now have a vast panoply of beers from which to choose. We now have porters, stouts, porters, lagers, porters, ales, pilsners, porters, bocks, and other variations. Did I mention we can now by a variety of good porters (I may have a preference that bias my reporting). The past decade or so has seen an explosion of craft brew that offers wonderful taste and options that the pale King of Beers, and the taste alike pilsners of the few competitors we had. We now live in the golden age of beer; Thank you Jimmy Carter.
The LPF candidate for Florida Govenor, Adrian Wyllie, did what will probably become a staple in politics. He campaigned from microbreweries all across the state. He didn’t hit them all. Even little villages like Crystal River has its own Winery and Brewery, in fact it’s the first winery and brewery in the same location ever in Florida, Cop Winery. It was a good location for the LPF candidate to visit. That visit and the work of only a few people resulted in little Citrus County returning a large percentage of LPF voting. There are more absurd regulations regarding how beer is made and sold to be removed. But it is self-evident and a historical fact that removing government regulation, revitalized a stagnant market with limited choices for the consumer.
Nothing against Budweiser, it’s a nice traditional pilsner, but when I have a choice of flavorful milk stouts, chocolate porters, and more varieties of American red ale, than I can name, why would a very light pale pilsner, that lacks depth, body, and flavor. America is buying less barrels of beer. The reason is clear, America like me, would rather have one $5 craft porter, than a 6 pack of Bud.
If you’re in Crystal River Florida, check out Cop Brewerey and order a G’Morning coffee stout, and drink a toast to Jimmy Carter, the liberal who opened up the beer market. If you in Ashville NC hoist a Greenman Porter in Carter’s honor. Spend a weekend looking for a CoCo Mole’ a spicy chocolate stout that is worth the search.
Like other monarchies, when the people are free from the “king,” they shed the crony protection and overbearing regulations of the “king,” liberty and freedom brings about a huge benefit to the people. As for me I won’t be helping much with American beer sales, I just bottled 2 cases of my very own porter thanks to the good people at ebrew.com. Free markets and competition, even from making it yourself, might be hard on big corporations, but they are good for We The People.
At Least one of the action of Jimmy Carter can be attributed to ending an monarchy. It was Jimmy Carter’s administration ending the prohibition of home brewed beer, that eventually lead to the rebirth of brewing in the USA. Prior to prohibition there were around 2000 breweries in the USA. In the roaring 20’s that number became zero. Today the number is now over 3000.
The monarchy that has been taken down is none other than the King of Beers, Budweiser. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the craft beer craze, (AKA free and open markets), crowded Budweiser out of the top spot and is now down to 7.6% of the beer market, half its market share from a year ago. “Young drinkers aren’t the reason Budweiser volumes have declined in the U.S. for 25 years, from its nearly 50-million-barrel peak in 1988 to 16 million barrels last year. . . . Some 44% of 21- to 27-year-old drinkers today have never tried Budweiser”
OK, once we realized prohibition was a bad idea, we still had an overzealous government. The post-prohibition restrictions made it all but impossible for small breweries to operate. By the late 70’s there were fewer than 100 breweries.
Starting with Carter ending prohibition of home brew, there were a series of Regan initiatives that swept away ridiculous government regulatory burdens that benefitted no one except Big Beer and their taste killing, lowest-common-denominator approach.
The fact is without draconian government regulation that supported big beer, the market has exploded. Free markets always result in the consumer having more choice over a wide range of offerings. When it comes to beer, we now have a vast panoply of beers from which to choose. We now have porters, stouts, porters, lagers, porters, ales, pilsners, porters, bocks, and other variations. Did I mention we can now by a variety of good porters (I may have a preference that bias my reporting). The past decade or so has seen an explosion of craft brew that offers wonderful taste and options that the pale King of Beers, and the taste alike pilsners of the few competitors we had. We now live in the golden age of beer; Thank you Jimmy Carter.
The LPF candidate for Florida Govenor, Adrian Wyllie, did what will probably become a staple in politics. He campaigned from microbreweries all across the state. He didn’t hit them all. Even little villages like Crystal River has its own Winery and Brewery, in fact it’s the first winery and brewery in the same location ever in Florida, Cop Winery. It was a good location for the LPF candidate to visit. That visit and the work of only a few people resulted in little Citrus County returning a large percentage of LPF voting. There are more absurd regulations regarding how beer is made and sold to be removed. But it is self-evident and a historical fact that removing government regulation, revitalized a stagnant market with limited choices for the consumer.
Nothing against Budweiser, it’s a nice traditional pilsner, but when I have a choice of flavorful milk stouts, chocolate porters, and more varieties of American red ale, than I can name, why would a very light pale pilsner, that lacks depth, body, and flavor. America is buying less barrels of beer. The reason is clear, America like me, would rather have one $5 craft porter, than a 6 pack of Bud.
If you’re in Crystal River Florida, check out Cop Brewerey and order a G’Morning coffee stout, and drink a toast to Jimmy Carter, the liberal who opened up the beer market. If you in Ashville NC hoist a Greenman Porter in Carter’s honor. Spend a weekend looking for a CoCo Mole’ a spicy chocolate stout that is worth the search.
Like other monarchies, when the people are free from the “king,” they shed the crony protection and overbearing regulations of the “king,” liberty and freedom brings about a huge benefit to the people. As for me I won’t be helping much with American beer sales, I just bottled 2 cases of my very own porter thanks to the good people at ebrew.com. Free markets and competition, even from making it yourself, might be hard on big corporations, but they are good for We The People.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Income Inequality – a Moral Imperative
By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2014
Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.
A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.
Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.
One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.
The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).
Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.
Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.
Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.
The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.
The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.
Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.
In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.
Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.
Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.
A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.
Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.
One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.
The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).
Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.
Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.
Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.
The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.
The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.
Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.
In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.
Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Net Neutrality is Simply the Liberal Response to Gruber
By Tom Rhodes, 11/24/2014
Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.
Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”
Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.
While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”
Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.
President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.
The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.
So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.
It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.
The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.
Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.
Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”
Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.
Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”
Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.
While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”
Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.
President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.
The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.
So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.
It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.
The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.
Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.
Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Prohibition - excues for big government and taking away our liberties.
By Tom Rhodes, repeat of 4/23/2009 post because it's relevant
Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Dion O'Banion, "Bugs" Moran (AKA Jack "Legs" Diamond), and "Dutch" Schultz, "Pretty Boy" Floyd, "Babyface" Nelson, Elliot Ness, Speakeasy, revenuers, G-men, The Coton Club, The Godfather, Flappers, all everyday names, places, styles. and ideas from some of our most popular action movies - Gangster movies.
Chicago - when you hear the name of that city do you think of honesty, integrity, liberty, or do you think of gangsters, crooked politics, graft and greed?
The roaring 20's where alcohol consumption was illegal, this had the following results: alcohol related deaths rose dramatically; arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent; arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent; organized crime grew into an empire; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance (alcohol) increased dramatically.
People flagrantly violated the law, drinking more of the substance that was originally prohibited. The problems prohibition intended to solve, such as crime, grew worse and they never returned to their pre-prohibition levels. Not only was prohibition ineffective, it was also damaging to the people and society it was meant to help. Prohibition should not have gone on for the thirteen years it was allowed to damage society.
You would think that prohibition would enhance the difficulty of obtaining alcohol. The opposite was true, liquor was actually very easy to acquire. The bootlegging business was so immense that customers could easily obtain alcohol by simply walking down almost any street. Today it's easier for a teen to get a joint than a beer. Pot's available at high school, and the local dealer doesn't card you.
FBI statistics show that in 2007 Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations, more than ever recorded in the USA. That's only the ones the police caught, many more never get caught. Even our last 3 presidents have admitted to doing pot. Well Clinton didn't inhale, so he might not count.
My grandfather born in Italy, living in Detroit, never paid any taxes from 1922 'til 1931 when for health reasons he moved to St. Louis and got a different job. (He was told to get out of town, as an independent Winsor to Detroit boatman, some people from the Purple Gang advised him that his health was in danger if he remained in Detroit.) This means that although he earned enough money to fully pay for a house, and was never without a new Oldsmobile every two years since leaving his independent delivery business, he also never paid a dime in income taxes over that same period of time. The government lost significant revenue for the 13 years of Prohibition because of the number of people earning a living "off the books".
How many of our inner city entrepreneurs currently earning a living selling a product their neighbors and friends obviously want, but happens to be illegal, are paying income taxes on their income?
Pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs. This is the argument for keeping it illegal. Beer prior to prohibition was the drink of choice for most, but because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. This sounds exactly like what's happened to the drug business, coke, crack, designer synthetic drugs, etc. all now available because there is more punch in smaller volume. In fact it can be argued that because of prohibition pot, and cocaine became more popular (they were still legal). Hence our war on drugs can be attributed to our failed war on demon alcohol.
Two good things did come from prohibition. Sweet mixed drinks, to cover the bad taste of bootleg liquer, it was mixed with sweet fruit juices to make it more palatable. Now we have fuzzy navels, bloody marys, Harvey Wallbangers, in fact an entire industry based on making hard to pallet strong liquors taste better. We also have the most popular and most watched sport in the nation due to prohibition. Nascar, started out with fast cars that were made from everyday transportation to out run government agents, and now it's watched by millions every weekend. And the drink most associated with Nascar... Beer, gotta love the irony.
Violence of the "Roaring 20's" was legendary. The violence of today’s drug gangs is just as legendary. There are as many modern gangster movies as those set in the 20's. When was the last time you heard a shooting over a "beer deal gone bad"? When was the last time you saw the door of a winery busted down on Cops? Doesn't happen, want to end violence related to gangs and drugs, then end drug prohibition. Because it's forced into the black market, the profits from drugs are extraordinarily large. A risk/profit analysis results in many people participating in illegal businesses. If there were not extraordinary risks, then there wouldn't be huge profits. The risks are there because drug suppliers, dealers, and purchasers can't avail themselves to the court system to settle disputes, they have to settle disputes themselves. This makes people who are willing to use violence and have violent skills employable, as these skills are necessary in the absence of being able to use a judiciary. End prohibition and the need for violence will disappear, just as it did in the alcohol business.
This is all common knowledge, in fact I've been collecting data like this forever from the net, for references just use Google on prohibition, gangsters, roaring 20's etc. all this and more is out there. We know that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and was a total disaster. We know this yet we cling to our war on drugs. Why?
Short answer is money. $19 billion federal dollars spend on the war on drugs in 2007. People running law enforcement, prisons, courts, selling law enforcement equipment, etc. all depend on the money from the war on drugs for their livelihood. Most of these are government workers or contractors. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If we ended the war on drugs we would only need a fraction of our prisons, law enforcement officers, and government employees. The government is protecting it job and power, not its citizens.
The stupidity of the failed war on drugs has got to stop. More illegal drugs are used in the US than anywhere in the world, the violence associated with drugs being illegal in the world has created international cartels, unstable governments, and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people. We know that prohibition leads to gangs, violence, crime, stronger chemicals, more addiction, and more use. Please work at ending prohibition, it doesn't work; all it does is give the government an excuse to further erode our liberty and freedom.
Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Dion O'Banion, "Bugs" Moran (AKA Jack "Legs" Diamond), and "Dutch" Schultz, "Pretty Boy" Floyd, "Babyface" Nelson, Elliot Ness, Speakeasy, revenuers, G-men, The Coton Club, The Godfather, Flappers, all everyday names, places, styles. and ideas from some of our most popular action movies - Gangster movies.
Chicago - when you hear the name of that city do you think of honesty, integrity, liberty, or do you think of gangsters, crooked politics, graft and greed?
The roaring 20's where alcohol consumption was illegal, this had the following results: alcohol related deaths rose dramatically; arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent; arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent; organized crime grew into an empire; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance (alcohol) increased dramatically.
People flagrantly violated the law, drinking more of the substance that was originally prohibited. The problems prohibition intended to solve, such as crime, grew worse and they never returned to their pre-prohibition levels. Not only was prohibition ineffective, it was also damaging to the people and society it was meant to help. Prohibition should not have gone on for the thirteen years it was allowed to damage society.
You would think that prohibition would enhance the difficulty of obtaining alcohol. The opposite was true, liquor was actually very easy to acquire. The bootlegging business was so immense that customers could easily obtain alcohol by simply walking down almost any street. Today it's easier for a teen to get a joint than a beer. Pot's available at high school, and the local dealer doesn't card you.
FBI statistics show that in 2007 Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations, more than ever recorded in the USA. That's only the ones the police caught, many more never get caught. Even our last 3 presidents have admitted to doing pot. Well Clinton didn't inhale, so he might not count.
My grandfather born in Italy, living in Detroit, never paid any taxes from 1922 'til 1931 when for health reasons he moved to St. Louis and got a different job. (He was told to get out of town, as an independent Winsor to Detroit boatman, some people from the Purple Gang advised him that his health was in danger if he remained in Detroit.) This means that although he earned enough money to fully pay for a house, and was never without a new Oldsmobile every two years since leaving his independent delivery business, he also never paid a dime in income taxes over that same period of time. The government lost significant revenue for the 13 years of Prohibition because of the number of people earning a living "off the books".
How many of our inner city entrepreneurs currently earning a living selling a product their neighbors and friends obviously want, but happens to be illegal, are paying income taxes on their income?
Pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs. This is the argument for keeping it illegal. Beer prior to prohibition was the drink of choice for most, but because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. This sounds exactly like what's happened to the drug business, coke, crack, designer synthetic drugs, etc. all now available because there is more punch in smaller volume. In fact it can be argued that because of prohibition pot, and cocaine became more popular (they were still legal). Hence our war on drugs can be attributed to our failed war on demon alcohol.
Two good things did come from prohibition. Sweet mixed drinks, to cover the bad taste of bootleg liquer, it was mixed with sweet fruit juices to make it more palatable. Now we have fuzzy navels, bloody marys, Harvey Wallbangers, in fact an entire industry based on making hard to pallet strong liquors taste better. We also have the most popular and most watched sport in the nation due to prohibition. Nascar, started out with fast cars that were made from everyday transportation to out run government agents, and now it's watched by millions every weekend. And the drink most associated with Nascar... Beer, gotta love the irony.
Violence of the "Roaring 20's" was legendary. The violence of today’s drug gangs is just as legendary. There are as many modern gangster movies as those set in the 20's. When was the last time you heard a shooting over a "beer deal gone bad"? When was the last time you saw the door of a winery busted down on Cops? Doesn't happen, want to end violence related to gangs and drugs, then end drug prohibition. Because it's forced into the black market, the profits from drugs are extraordinarily large. A risk/profit analysis results in many people participating in illegal businesses. If there were not extraordinary risks, then there wouldn't be huge profits. The risks are there because drug suppliers, dealers, and purchasers can't avail themselves to the court system to settle disputes, they have to settle disputes themselves. This makes people who are willing to use violence and have violent skills employable, as these skills are necessary in the absence of being able to use a judiciary. End prohibition and the need for violence will disappear, just as it did in the alcohol business.
This is all common knowledge, in fact I've been collecting data like this forever from the net, for references just use Google on prohibition, gangsters, roaring 20's etc. all this and more is out there. We know that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and was a total disaster. We know this yet we cling to our war on drugs. Why?
Short answer is money. $19 billion federal dollars spend on the war on drugs in 2007. People running law enforcement, prisons, courts, selling law enforcement equipment, etc. all depend on the money from the war on drugs for their livelihood. Most of these are government workers or contractors. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If we ended the war on drugs we would only need a fraction of our prisons, law enforcement officers, and government employees. The government is protecting it job and power, not its citizens.
The stupidity of the failed war on drugs has got to stop. More illegal drugs are used in the US than anywhere in the world, the violence associated with drugs being illegal in the world has created international cartels, unstable governments, and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people. We know that prohibition leads to gangs, violence, crime, stronger chemicals, more addiction, and more use. Please work at ending prohibition, it doesn't work; all it does is give the government an excuse to further erode our liberty and freedom.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Gay Marriage – Greatest Tax Dodge Ever Invented
By Tom Rhodes, 10/8/2014
Forget the religious, moral, and cultural arguments for/against gay marriage. It has got to be the best thing to ever happen to cheating the government out of taxes ever conceived. Once the leftists amoral progressives get their way and polygamy is once again legal, the rich will be able to sell off assets at great profit and not pay any taxes.
Think about it. Say a modestly well off guy buys some land and builds a house that cost him $100K 20 years ago, today he can sell that house for $500K, but if he does he has to pay taxes on the $400K profit of the sale. At 15% that’s a $60,000 loss. Make a deal with the buyer, we’ll call that deal a prenup, so instead of a “buyer” we have a “spouse.” They get married, create a joint savings account, and put the spouse on the deed. Then divorce. As part of the of the divorce agreement, in accordance with the prenup, the guy “loses” his house to the spouse, but gets the $400K from their “joint” savings account. Presto change property sold money exchanged and the government gets zero tax dollars. Marriage license and divorce filing fees under $1K so for doing paperwork, the seller realized $59K more in the bank and the government didn’t get $60K in taxes.
Now expand that to a business owner, with a $500Million dollar sports franchise he bought for $800K 10 years ago, and you can see how hundreds of millions of dollars in profits and capital gains can be transferred with zero tax liability. Guy marries another guy, and now they are joint owners of the Charlotte Hornets, new spouse catches him in bed with of all things a “woman” messy public divorce, and the Hornets have a new owner, but because of prenup, half a Billion dollars in their “joint” account goes to the former owner. Imagine an employee given “shares” in the company, no taxes get paid until they are sold and gains are realized. Now that employee gets married, the marriage “fails” and they get a divorce, the employee has a “bad lawyer” and gets taken, and all the shares go to the spouse. The spouse, now ex, has not realized payment from the corporation and can sell the shares tax free as the spouse realized zero capital gains. You get the picture.
The unintended consequence to gay marriage is the rich get another tax dodge, this one bigger than ever. Once the logical extension of gay marriage is realized, legalized polygamy, it’s going to get real interesting. The possibilities for avoiding taxes and moving money will be endless. Unless of course you want to create laws that force a divorced woman to pay taxes on the assets she is already the rightful owner.
Through the use of legally enforceable prenuptial agreements and divorces massive amounts of profits will legally be transferred and generated without any tax liability. Some might say that using marriage to avoid taxes is immoral, but then whose definition of moral are you using, it’s not like gay marriage by thousands of years of tradition and the standard of virtually every religion is moral.
Marriage, has always been used as a political and monetary tool, arranged marriages have brought nations together. Liberal divorce laws along with gay marriage is going to bring a slew of political and monetary schemes never intended. Unlike traditional marriage which always, even in arranged marriages, had a strong moral component; the unintended consequence of legalizing gay marriage with already liberal divorce laws are going to be manifestly greater than anybody has considered. You think inversion is a bad of US tax laws, wait until you see what unintended consequences manifest with gay marriage.
Forget the religious, moral, and cultural arguments for/against gay marriage. It has got to be the best thing to ever happen to cheating the government out of taxes ever conceived. Once the leftists amoral progressives get their way and polygamy is once again legal, the rich will be able to sell off assets at great profit and not pay any taxes.
Think about it. Say a modestly well off guy buys some land and builds a house that cost him $100K 20 years ago, today he can sell that house for $500K, but if he does he has to pay taxes on the $400K profit of the sale. At 15% that’s a $60,000 loss. Make a deal with the buyer, we’ll call that deal a prenup, so instead of a “buyer” we have a “spouse.” They get married, create a joint savings account, and put the spouse on the deed. Then divorce. As part of the of the divorce agreement, in accordance with the prenup, the guy “loses” his house to the spouse, but gets the $400K from their “joint” savings account. Presto change property sold money exchanged and the government gets zero tax dollars. Marriage license and divorce filing fees under $1K so for doing paperwork, the seller realized $59K more in the bank and the government didn’t get $60K in taxes.
Now expand that to a business owner, with a $500Million dollar sports franchise he bought for $800K 10 years ago, and you can see how hundreds of millions of dollars in profits and capital gains can be transferred with zero tax liability. Guy marries another guy, and now they are joint owners of the Charlotte Hornets, new spouse catches him in bed with of all things a “woman” messy public divorce, and the Hornets have a new owner, but because of prenup, half a Billion dollars in their “joint” account goes to the former owner. Imagine an employee given “shares” in the company, no taxes get paid until they are sold and gains are realized. Now that employee gets married, the marriage “fails” and they get a divorce, the employee has a “bad lawyer” and gets taken, and all the shares go to the spouse. The spouse, now ex, has not realized payment from the corporation and can sell the shares tax free as the spouse realized zero capital gains. You get the picture.
The unintended consequence to gay marriage is the rich get another tax dodge, this one bigger than ever. Once the logical extension of gay marriage is realized, legalized polygamy, it’s going to get real interesting. The possibilities for avoiding taxes and moving money will be endless. Unless of course you want to create laws that force a divorced woman to pay taxes on the assets she is already the rightful owner.
Through the use of legally enforceable prenuptial agreements and divorces massive amounts of profits will legally be transferred and generated without any tax liability. Some might say that using marriage to avoid taxes is immoral, but then whose definition of moral are you using, it’s not like gay marriage by thousands of years of tradition and the standard of virtually every religion is moral.
Marriage, has always been used as a political and monetary tool, arranged marriages have brought nations together. Liberal divorce laws along with gay marriage is going to bring a slew of political and monetary schemes never intended. Unlike traditional marriage which always, even in arranged marriages, had a strong moral component; the unintended consequence of legalizing gay marriage with already liberal divorce laws are going to be manifestly greater than anybody has considered. You think inversion is a bad of US tax laws, wait until you see what unintended consequences manifest with gay marriage.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
US Government Silences Political Speech
US Government Silences Political Speech
By Tom Rhodes, 9/23/2014
A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that political speech is not protected. If those who don't approve of your speech threaten violence, the government has a right to silence you. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals now says preventing possible violence against you outweighs your right to free speech.
What the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was that the government, in this case school officials of Live Oak High School, can prohibit students from wearing to school clothing featuring the American flag, because of threats made against those students, not because of any threats those students made.
Peacefully wearing a shirt with an American Flag to school because it might piss off criminal alien students can be punished by the government. That is sick. What the Court ruled is that the hecklers veto is legal, and not submitting to the threat of violence is illegal.
During the 2009 Cinco de Mayo celebration at Live Oak, school officials ordered the students to turn their shirts inside out or go home, apparently because Latino students at the school couldn't be blamed if they became incensed at the flag shirts and resorted to violence to express their outrage. A year later, during the 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, Mexican students confronted three American students wearing American flag shirts again. "Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans?" one asked. The Mexican students threatened violence. Rather than go after the criminal bullies threatening violence, the government officials took the easy and cowardly path of punishing the peaceful patriots? Instead of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers, they persecuted those who exercised free speech.
What this does is rewarded their thuggish behavior and incentivized further acts of violence. The court, by approving this horrendous decision, has now set a precedent. If you want to shut down people's speech, the best way to do it is to threaten or commit violent acts against the speaker. As Libertarians we are screwed. The NAP dooms us to lose.
That's right the Non-Aggression Principle, dooms us. The court has ruled that all any group needs to do to silence libertarian speech is to threaten to do us violence. To protect us and stop violence the Court has ruled that we can be silenced.
Nobody could argue that the students wearing American Flag clothing isn't political speech, especially on Cinco de Mayo, in a place with a large Latino population. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect politically popular and generally accepted speech, that speech needs no protection. The strongest protections of the First Amendment supposedly apply to political speech. Obviously the First Amendment is dead. If liberals were intellectually honest, they would join us in voicing disgust at this court ruling and petition the SCOTUS to overturn this horrible decision.
Next thing you know, the US will be like Canada and tell Christians they cannot share scripture if those passages might offend others to the point of provoking them to violence. Imagine in the USA the government making reading or preaching on Leviticus 18:22 illegal, because it may cause others to become violent. Substantively that situation only differs in content from what telling students they can’t where American Flag themed clothing.
We do have a choice, it’s a sick choice, but now a legal choice, we can credibly threaten statists promoting statism with violence, then use this court case as a precedent to silence leftist ideas. All we have to do is abandon the NAP.
Not going to Happen!!! As the Party of Principle, the Libertarian Party cannot and will not abandon the one thing we expect of Libertarians - acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle. So soon expect the government to silence libertarian ideas using the excuse that such ideas publically expressed may upset a statist to the point they do violence, and preventing possible violence outweighs the right to free speech. It’s a sick end to the First Amendment and Liberty.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/23/2014
A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that political speech is not protected. If those who don't approve of your speech threaten violence, the government has a right to silence you. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals now says preventing possible violence against you outweighs your right to free speech.
What the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was that the government, in this case school officials of Live Oak High School, can prohibit students from wearing to school clothing featuring the American flag, because of threats made against those students, not because of any threats those students made.
Peacefully wearing a shirt with an American Flag to school because it might piss off criminal alien students can be punished by the government. That is sick. What the Court ruled is that the hecklers veto is legal, and not submitting to the threat of violence is illegal.
During the 2009 Cinco de Mayo celebration at Live Oak, school officials ordered the students to turn their shirts inside out or go home, apparently because Latino students at the school couldn't be blamed if they became incensed at the flag shirts and resorted to violence to express their outrage. A year later, during the 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, Mexican students confronted three American students wearing American flag shirts again. "Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans?" one asked. The Mexican students threatened violence. Rather than go after the criminal bullies threatening violence, the government officials took the easy and cowardly path of punishing the peaceful patriots? Instead of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers, they persecuted those who exercised free speech.
What this does is rewarded their thuggish behavior and incentivized further acts of violence. The court, by approving this horrendous decision, has now set a precedent. If you want to shut down people's speech, the best way to do it is to threaten or commit violent acts against the speaker. As Libertarians we are screwed. The NAP dooms us to lose.
That's right the Non-Aggression Principle, dooms us. The court has ruled that all any group needs to do to silence libertarian speech is to threaten to do us violence. To protect us and stop violence the Court has ruled that we can be silenced.
Nobody could argue that the students wearing American Flag clothing isn't political speech, especially on Cinco de Mayo, in a place with a large Latino population. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect politically popular and generally accepted speech, that speech needs no protection. The strongest protections of the First Amendment supposedly apply to political speech. Obviously the First Amendment is dead. If liberals were intellectually honest, they would join us in voicing disgust at this court ruling and petition the SCOTUS to overturn this horrible decision.
Next thing you know, the US will be like Canada and tell Christians they cannot share scripture if those passages might offend others to the point of provoking them to violence. Imagine in the USA the government making reading or preaching on Leviticus 18:22 illegal, because it may cause others to become violent. Substantively that situation only differs in content from what telling students they can’t where American Flag themed clothing.
We do have a choice, it’s a sick choice, but now a legal choice, we can credibly threaten statists promoting statism with violence, then use this court case as a precedent to silence leftist ideas. All we have to do is abandon the NAP.
Not going to Happen!!! As the Party of Principle, the Libertarian Party cannot and will not abandon the one thing we expect of Libertarians - acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle. So soon expect the government to silence libertarian ideas using the excuse that such ideas publically expressed may upset a statist to the point they do violence, and preventing possible violence outweighs the right to free speech. It’s a sick end to the First Amendment and Liberty.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Why Not Pay Them A Lot More?
By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/12
Thomas Sowell proposes an interesting idea. Most if not all the problems we see with elected officials is them using their power to acquire a high paying job later, or inside info to make money in the market, etc. Lobbyists find it relatively easy and cheap to purchase what they want out of government.
The Libertarian Position is to make government officials so powerless it won’t matter if they are bought off. Great idea in theory, but isn’t going to happen in reality. Dr Sowell proposes that we make it harder to buy off a government official, and make the job more attractive to people with real expertise who would never consider an office because of the pay cut.
Sowell notes, “We could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year -- for a whole century -- for less than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
The least we can do is make it harder to bribe them. Trying to bribe a millionaire would at least be harder than bribing some government official with a modest salary and a couple of kids going to expensive colleges.”
At less than $600 Million, compared to the current waste in government, it might be a wise investment.
Like he says the current crop doesn’t deserve the money, but we won’t get better people at the current pay. Paying the people who control TRILLIONS of dollars a million a year is not outlandish. Look at CEO pay vs the gross revenue of companies they head. Maybe paying every member of the house $1 Million a year, the Senate and VP $1.5 million, and the President $2 Million a year, would both attract better people to the job and insulate them better from the influence of corporate money. And we wouldn’t have to deal with them voting themselves a raise every year. Something to think about. Not only if they made a lot more money, it would be a lot harder to influence them with a promise of a great job and a tip on what stock to buy, it would attract a better class ofcrook candidate. It would probably be a lot cheaper in the long run.
Definately an idea with debate.
Thomas Sowell proposes an interesting idea. Most if not all the problems we see with elected officials is them using their power to acquire a high paying job later, or inside info to make money in the market, etc. Lobbyists find it relatively easy and cheap to purchase what they want out of government.
The Libertarian Position is to make government officials so powerless it won’t matter if they are bought off. Great idea in theory, but isn’t going to happen in reality. Dr Sowell proposes that we make it harder to buy off a government official, and make the job more attractive to people with real expertise who would never consider an office because of the pay cut.
Sowell notes, “We could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year -- for a whole century -- for less than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
The least we can do is make it harder to bribe them. Trying to bribe a millionaire would at least be harder than bribing some government official with a modest salary and a couple of kids going to expensive colleges.”
At less than $600 Million, compared to the current waste in government, it might be a wise investment.
Like he says the current crop doesn’t deserve the money, but we won’t get better people at the current pay. Paying the people who control TRILLIONS of dollars a million a year is not outlandish. Look at CEO pay vs the gross revenue of companies they head. Maybe paying every member of the house $1 Million a year, the Senate and VP $1.5 million, and the President $2 Million a year, would both attract better people to the job and insulate them better from the influence of corporate money. And we wouldn’t have to deal with them voting themselves a raise every year. Something to think about. Not only if they made a lot more money, it would be a lot harder to influence them with a promise of a great job and a tip on what stock to buy, it would attract a better class of
Definately an idea with debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
