By Tom Rhodes, 7/9/2015
Fundamentally we should ask ourselves, why the people of oil and material rich Mexico, abandon their homeland, break international law, and migrate to the USA? We should also ask why the people of Greece voted to violate international law and renege on the debt they choose procure? Why did the USA prosper while other countries with equal resources stagnate or decay? The fundamental reason the USA prospered is the same fundamental reason it now wanes. The bedrock principle that was established and regarded as sacred, a principle that is becoming more and more meaningless in the USA, is “The Rule of Law.”
Mexico is a naturally rich country; blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens vote with their feet, reject their homeland, break the law, and illegally come to the USA. The reason is because Mexico is a mess. The police expect bribes, property rights are only for the rich and well connected, and if you can’t afford to pay the kickbacks, the government doesn’t work. The sad fact is the people of Mexico leave their homeland and come to the USA, while the people of the USA don’t migrate to Mexico is because, in Mexico, the people cannot expect clean water, adequate public safety, reliable power, nor upward mobility. Those things don’t exist in Mexico because neither the government nor the culture have a respect nor expectation of the “Rule of Law.”
Like Mexico, Greece has institutionalized corruption. There is a distinct lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. It doesn’t matter how many euros the EU loans Greece. If Greeks continue to dodge taxes, see corruption as a business model, the EU loans are throwing good money after bad. The Greeks are now in a position that they can never repay, ever! Privation for generations is the only way they can repay the EU. The Germans are demanding just that, repayment at the expense of the standard of living for an entire nation. The Germans expect generations of Greeks to work to repay their corrupt government’s borrowing. Money borrowed to redistribute to the Greeks and pad fat pensions. As long as the rule of law is not the rule of Greece it will continue to be a disaster. In a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. All laws seem negotiable in Athens in a way not true of other nations.
The fact is that our nation is in decline, No nation can expect to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. When an entire city, can say, “Screw the law”, and declare that their city is a "sanctuary" where the Federal Law will be ignored, such as San Francisco’s defiance of immigration laws, then why can’t cities in Utah or Alabama declare that gay marriage laws were null and void. If San Francisco can defy immigration laws, why can’t Tampa defy import laws and declare its port to be duty free, inspection free, and allow any car to be imported? Imagine ignoring federal laws, and buying a car like the Chevy Beat that has a list price of $6634, gets over 60mpg, but not allowed in the US. Maybe ignoring federal laws is not such a bad idea.
The idea that foreign nationals in the USA without proper visas, green cards, etc. are not criminals, and that the INS should only focus on known foreign nationals who are also known felons would be like telling the police to not stop people without license plates unless they are in an accident or speeding. Should the IRS be told not to look for tax cheats unless they have been previously convicted of being a tax cheat?
Think about it, federal government employees owe more than $3 billion in federal back taxes, why should non-government employed tax payers be treated any differently. The fact is for the average person, getting away without paying taxes is no longer considered morally wrong. Getting caught as a tax cheat is considered stupid, but not wrong. Our culture used to denigrate those who broke the law.
The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
1) The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2) The laws are clear, publicized, stable and just, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
3) The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient.
4) Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and are acceptable to the communities they serve.
Members of Congress feel no compulsion to obey the law. District of Columbia police issued 2,912 parking tickets to cars owned by members of Congress in 1998. None were paid. The financially strapped District, which actively pursues and "boots" cars belonging to ordinary citizens, does not go after members of Congress. You don’t actually have to be a member of congress, if your rich and can afford a lawyer, you can make traffic tickets, including most DUI’s disappear, no points, no record, nada. Just pay “court costs” and it goes away. Not rich enough to afford a lawyer, lose your license, maybe your job, pay just as much. It is so bad that even traffic laws are not applied equally.
Can you honestly say that the “Rule of Law” is sacred in the USA. Do the actions of our government, or the treatment of Hillary, Sharpton, and criminal foreign nationals (AKA illegal aliens) reflect any respect for the Rule of Law. Does the supreme court saying that despite what Obamacare law clearly says, the government can change it and enforce it however it wants reflect a respect for the “Rule of Law?”
The USA is going the way of Greece and Mexico. The people of the USA have realized that they don’t have to obey the law. There is no shame in breaking the law, only for being stupid enough to get caught and too poor to buy your way out. If immigration law doesn’t apply to people coming into the USA across our southern border; if email retention laws don’t apply to Hillary; if tax laws and penalties don’t apply to Sharpton; if former Citrus County Sherriff Dean doesn’t have to get a permit to build on his property; then why should building codes, zoning laws, tax laws, or even traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Libertarians, Useful Idiots for the Left
By Tom Rhodes, 7/1/2015
Interesting blog were Sultan Knish explains why it is useless to attempt reason with leftists, and how Libertarians have become the Lefts useful idiots.
Being a moderate, or compromising, with the left is a losing proposition. In the case of Gay Marriage the Libertarians have been the Left's useful idiots, just as liberals have been in the past. The historical evidence for their behavior and the consequences is compelling. Read the entire blog and you'll understand how the Libertarians we been used by the Left and have given them more tools to gain power and take liberty from us all.
Interesting blog were Sultan Knish explains why it is useless to attempt reason with leftists, and how Libertarians have become the Lefts useful idiots.
...
The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.
...
You can't accommodate the left on social issues. You can't accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can't do it. Period.
The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.
The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.
It's not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.
More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others. ...
Being a moderate, or compromising, with the left is a losing proposition. In the case of Gay Marriage the Libertarians have been the Left's useful idiots, just as liberals have been in the past. The historical evidence for their behavior and the consequences is compelling. Read the entire blog and you'll understand how the Libertarians we been used by the Left and have given them more tools to gain power and take liberty from us all.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Why I’m Not a Progressive
by Tom Rhodes, 6/29/2015
Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.
We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.
In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”
Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”
The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.
It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)
The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.
The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”
Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:
If you believe that certain words are acceptable for one group of people to use but forbidden by others; you might be a progressive.
If you believe academic requirements to get into universities should be lower for people of one skin color than another; you might be a racist progressive.
If you believe physical requirements for certain jobs should be lower for one group of people than for others; you might be a sexist progressive.
If you believe some standards of behavior should be acceptable for one group of people and not for others; you might be a progressive.
I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?
Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.
We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.
In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”
Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”
The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.
It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)
The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.
The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”
Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:
I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?
Monday, June 15, 2015
Why do weh have Marriage Laws?
By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015
The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.
Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.
In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.
Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.
The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.
Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.
Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?
The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage all laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.
Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.
All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".
Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by the government. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.
The hookup culture and 50+% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.
Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, adultry, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any children. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.
Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, who are not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce, the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.
Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control. Not willing to tolerate any part of society it doesn't control, government has tried, and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.
With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.
The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. Considering, there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility; not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights;, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle. What purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?
The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.
Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.
In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.
Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.
The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.
Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.
Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?
The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage all laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.
Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.
All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".
Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by the government. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.
The hookup culture and 50+% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.
Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, adultry, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any children. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.
Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, who are not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce, the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.
Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.
Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control. Not willing to tolerate any part of society it doesn't control, government has tried, and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.
With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.
The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. Considering, there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility; not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights;, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle. What purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?
Scientists at Mayo Clinic Discover Keys to Happiness!!
By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015
If the 60’s cheesy version of the Masked Crusader’s youthful sidekick was analyzing the scientific “discovery” from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic he would exclaim “Holy Plagiarism Batman.” It seems that scientists have “discovered” what Christianity, (and to be honest most religions) have been teaching for thousands of years.
It’s amazing that, what some declare as the world’s finest health institution, Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, with pomp and circumstance announced they have “cracked the code to being happy.” They laud the fact that scientists have come up with “an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy.”
This is what the scientists and doctors at Mayo Clinic say about being happy.
Did none of these people ever go to church? There is a book that’s been around for thousands of years that teaches all these concepts. For eons it has been the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, it’s called the Bible. I won’t go into the various verses, but much of the Bible and the thousands of sermons preached regularly for 2000 years cover each of those points. Kind of cool that scientists have finally caught up to theologians.
This isn’t a new concept, science continues to validate ancient wisdom. The late Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA Scientist, summed it up wonderfully saying, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Next thing you know scientists will “discover” that limited government, with the rule of law, and letting people to rule themselves, leads to more prosperity for more people.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).
If the 60’s cheesy version of the Masked Crusader’s youthful sidekick was analyzing the scientific “discovery” from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic he would exclaim “Holy Plagiarism Batman.” It seems that scientists have “discovered” what Christianity, (and to be honest most religions) have been teaching for thousands of years.
It’s amazing that, what some declare as the world’s finest health institution, Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, with pomp and circumstance announced they have “cracked the code to being happy.” They laud the fact that scientists have come up with “an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy.”
This is what the scientists and doctors at Mayo Clinic say about being happy.
People who are happy seem to intuitively know that their happiness is the sum of their life choices, and their lives are built on the following pillars:
Devoting time to family and friends
Appreciating what they have
Maintaining an optimistic outlook
Feeling a sense of purpose
Living in the moment
Did none of these people ever go to church? There is a book that’s been around for thousands of years that teaches all these concepts. For eons it has been the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, it’s called the Bible. I won’t go into the various verses, but much of the Bible and the thousands of sermons preached regularly for 2000 years cover each of those points. Kind of cool that scientists have finally caught up to theologians.
This isn’t a new concept, science continues to validate ancient wisdom. The late Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA Scientist, summed it up wonderfully saying, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Next thing you know scientists will “discover” that limited government, with the rule of law, and letting people to rule themselves, leads to more prosperity for more people.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).
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.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Freedom of Speech and Bill of Rights Will Be Dead in a Generation
By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2015
Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.
To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.
Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.
The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.
June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.
Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.
To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.
Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.
The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.
June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Feds Require You to Get Permission before Blogging or Posting on the Internet.
By Tom Rhodes, 6/8/2015
Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.
This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.
Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.
This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Obama Promoted to IPCC Papal Astronomer
By Tom Rhodes, 5/28/2015
President Obama, has replaced Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology’s Pope. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology is more commonly known as the IPCC. There next Synod is scheduled for the end of this year where the faithful will meet to determine how best to convert the unwashed masses and force them to ignore the scientific method and accept their dictates as true. Al Gore was removed from his office of IPCC Papal Astronomer when the Inconvenient Truth of his prediction that the North West Passage would be ice free failed to manifest.
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology in 2013makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. IPCC Papal Astronomer, President Obama, has declared, "Climate change can no longer be denied," further saying, "an urgent and growing threat to our national security.". Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy. Papal Astronomer, President Obama, condemned heretics accusing them being a danger to the security of the republic saying, "Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. "
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including half of all meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today B.H. Obama is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the IPCC pope; crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The progressive faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs are using “climate change” as an excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC’s official astronomer, President Obama, you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
President Obama, has replaced Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology’s Pope. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology is more commonly known as the IPCC. There next Synod is scheduled for the end of this year where the faithful will meet to determine how best to convert the unwashed masses and force them to ignore the scientific method and accept their dictates as true. Al Gore was removed from his office of IPCC Papal Astronomer when the Inconvenient Truth of his prediction that the North West Passage would be ice free failed to manifest.
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology in 2013makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. IPCC Papal Astronomer, President Obama, has declared, "Climate change can no longer be denied," further saying, "an urgent and growing threat to our national security.". Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy. Papal Astronomer, President Obama, condemned heretics accusing them being a danger to the security of the republic saying, "Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. "
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including half of all meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today B.H. Obama is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the IPCC pope; crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The progressive faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs are using “climate change” as an excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC’s official astronomer, President Obama, you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Democrat Leaders Openly Calling for Tyrannical Despotism
By Tom Rhodes, 5/18/2015
The Democrat leadership is openly calling for rule by tyrannical despot, specifically doing away with the Bill of Rights. Directly attacking the First Amendment.
"We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues." ~ President B.H. Obama May, 2015
How exactly the president intends to square his desire to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment, is clear. He plans on ignoring the Constitution and force the press and the people to capitulate. Using Orwellian Newspeak for his lawless actions calling totalitarian dictates to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of the press, “Net Neutrality” and the “Fairness Doctrine.”
The front runner for the Democrat’s next presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton. She also is directly attacking the First Amendment:
“Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,: arguing, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” ~ Hillary Clinton, April 2015
How exactly the presidential front runner for the Democrat party intends to square her desire to change our “deep-seated religious beliefs” with the First Amendment, is clear. She is advocating laws against expressing traditional Christian beliefs, and ignore or do away with the First Amendment. The Democrat Presidential front runner is unequivocally saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views. If you’re a Christian, you are being attacked for merely repeating the plain language of the Bible. Clinton has openly stated her goal is to change Christianity, not protect your freedom of religion.
The leaders of the Democrat party are openly saying they must change how the people think by controlling the media, and change what we are allowed to believe. They believe that they should force you to change, for your own good of course.
Wake up!!! There is not one person who calls themselves progressive or liberal or Democrat willing to defend your rights, when was the last time you heard any leftist say “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
Because they cannot get their way legally and the people won’t give them absolute rule, they are now openly attacking the First Amendment. Are you willing to let that happen?
The Democrat leadership is openly calling for rule by tyrannical despot, specifically doing away with the Bill of Rights. Directly attacking the First Amendment.
"We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues." ~ President B.H. Obama May, 2015
How exactly the president intends to square his desire to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment, is clear. He plans on ignoring the Constitution and force the press and the people to capitulate. Using Orwellian Newspeak for his lawless actions calling totalitarian dictates to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of the press, “Net Neutrality” and the “Fairness Doctrine.”
The front runner for the Democrat’s next presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton. She also is directly attacking the First Amendment:
“Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,: arguing, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” ~ Hillary Clinton, April 2015
How exactly the presidential front runner for the Democrat party intends to square her desire to change our “deep-seated religious beliefs” with the First Amendment, is clear. She is advocating laws against expressing traditional Christian beliefs, and ignore or do away with the First Amendment. The Democrat Presidential front runner is unequivocally saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views. If you’re a Christian, you are being attacked for merely repeating the plain language of the Bible. Clinton has openly stated her goal is to change Christianity, not protect your freedom of religion.
The leaders of the Democrat party are openly saying they must change how the people think by controlling the media, and change what we are allowed to believe. They believe that they should force you to change, for your own good of course.
Wake up!!! There is not one person who calls themselves progressive or liberal or Democrat willing to defend your rights, when was the last time you heard any leftist say “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
Because they cannot get their way legally and the people won’t give them absolute rule, they are now openly attacking the First Amendment. Are you willing to let that happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
