First You Lose Your Pharmacies

But the decivilizational process won't stop until the toilets no longer function:

The effects of allowing chaos to prevail in liberal run cities across America might not be obvious to liberals now, but when their cities empty out completely, it's going to become crystal clear. Such is the case in San Francisco, where the city's new normal of shoplifting and chaos has driven another Walgreens pharmacy out of the city.

The move to close the Walgreens at Van Ness and Eddy came after "months of seeing its shelves repeatedly cleaned out by brazen shoplifters", according to the SF Chronicle. The location served "many older people" who lived in the area.

One customer told the paper: "All of us knew it was coming. Whenever we go in there, they always have problems with shoplifters."

The same customer photographed someone in the store, days prior, "clearing a couple shelves and placing the goods into a backpack". Because when there's no police and politicians are afraid to enforce the law - why not?

The penalty for shoplifting is a "nonviolent misdemeanor" that carries a maximum sentence of 6 months. But in most cases, for simple shoplifting, the criminal is simply released with conditions.

The customer, who lives a block away, said: “I feel sorry for the clerks, they are regularly being verbally assaulted. The clerks say there is nothing they can do. They say Walgreens’ policy is to not get involved. They don’t want anyone getting injured or getting sued, so the guys just keep coming in and taking whatever they want.”

When the Chronicle went to visit the store, they noticed "aisle after aisle of near empty shelves" and said that beauty products seemed to be a favored target. While the Chronicle was in the store, a man with a mask on walked in, emptied two shelves into a bag and walked out the door.

When they asked a clerk where all the products were, the clerk responded: “Go ask the people in the alleys, they have it all.”

Walgreen corporate commented: “Organized retail crime in San Francisco has increased the challenge for all retail, and Walgreens is not immune to that.”

This location is the third Walgreens to close in the city over the past year.

The benefits of Christian civilization are not a given. Technological progress does not rely solely on knowledge, but also on societal character. Abandon Christianity, and you'll eventually find yourself living like the pagans did prior to Christendom. ______________________

this post was stolen from VoxPopuli

Prepare Yourself, Civil War II is Coming

by Tom Rhodes, 8/16/2020

Elitists Left are using BLM to undo the creation of the Middle class that started when those uppity colonialists dared to think they could rule themselves. I’ve written before that the very idea that the common man had the idea he could self-govern was a Slap in the Face to elitists who have been trying to squash that idea and put the masses back in their place. Where the common man got the idea that all men to be treated equal with no special considerations to rich or poor or whatever must be squashed.

It all started with that upstart Martin Luther, not MLK Jr. the original he and his daddy were named after, and that Gutenberg guy making it affordable for those outside the ruling elite to obtain a copy of and read for himself the Word of God. This resulted in the church breaking apart and the Protestant Reformation and an era called “the Age of Enlightenment,” look it up.

You’ll note that the Age of Enlightenment coincides with them uppity colonialists spanking there betters and letting them know that they'll take care of themselves. Like I've said, the elites took this as a slap in the face. The big problem is they not only could, but did and in an historically short time became the most powerful nation in the world with fewer people in poverty than ever in history, outlawing slavery and creating a culture so generous they helped other poor nations. Embarrassing to all those who think the masses should be ruled. Rational elites recognized the reality of the common man rejecting the need of elites to rule them, and that putting Christianity into practice created modern “Western Civilization.” To put the common man back in his place, and take back their rule, they concluded that the root and foundations of this must be destroyed. That is what both the elites of the world, and those cultures that don’t embrace Christianity want, to “Fundamentally Change” the USA.

To hide the fact that it is an attack on Christianity, they started by reframing the debate. The call it Bourgeois culture not Christianity. Look at what BLM is attacking, they are openly calling the values and beliefs of bourgeois culture racist. Saying openly that the American Dream is racist. The Atlantic says the American Dream is a Nightmare. The reality is minority races have more freedom, a better standard of living, and more opportunity in the USA than anywhere in the world, because of, not despite the values of modern western civilization, aka bourgeois culture, or more properly Protestant Christianity.

Two prominent economists (both black) don’t use the term bourgeois culture, or Christianity, or protestant work ethic. But they clearly note that those of all races who embrace the behaviors and values and expectations “white” bourgeois culture, the chances of being poor are slim.

No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault.

If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. It turns out that a married couple, each earning the minimum wage, would earn an annual combined income of $30,000(ed. twice the poverty level at the time it was written)..

To be clear, attacks by BLM attacks from Hollywood, are attacks on Christianity from both the top and the bottom. They are attacks on the middle class, which was created by embracing The Christ and humbly living by the words of Jesus and his disciples. Christianity calls for the people to takes care of the widows and orphans (the truly needy) but it also teaches that he who won’t work shall not eat. They not only don’t don’t understand Christian Middle Class culture they hate it. The top doesn’t what to have to voluntarily give their riches to take care of others who they believe should serve them, much less share in their moral values. Much of the bottom believes that it is chance, luck, or spite, not the ability, drive, and behavior of people that makes people prosperous or not. Both the top and the bottom don’t want to have to be held to bourgeois values, as they embrace not only the protestant work ethic, but expectations of charity, and morality.

Embracing the American Dream includes embracing traditional middle class values and beliefs. Not all cultures accept these beliefs, and not having traditional protestant values does not bean a people or culture cannot be Christian, or good, or moral, or is better or inferior, different cultures are just that, different. What it does mean, as history has repeatedly shown, is that you cannot live in peace within a different culture that expects you to share those values.

God separated man by tribe and language creating a very diverse humanity. He created nations of people who were different. Never in all of history have tribes (nations) been able to live together in peace. That’s probably one of the reasons why He separated them. You and I are confused and don’t understand how other cultures can believe and value what they believe and value (hence the meaning of the word babel). The white protestants who settled the USA, could not and did not adopt Native American Culture. In fact we crushed that culture and tried to change the Indian tribes to adopt our culture. Now only a fraction of it exists today. 300+ years of Native American and northern white Europeans living together has not created a single culture, it never will. It was hubris and sinful for Christian men to try and unify what God separated. Globalists today ignore all of human history and continue to try and undo God’s work, with similar results. Invading masses of people migrating to other places never adopt the native culture, they crush it, and force it to comply with theirs.

It was a subset of Europeans that came to the USA and in reality didn’t form one homogeneous nation and culture. If you grew up and your family was many generations in New England, the people, language, values, and culture visiting Alabama feels foreign to you. People from NYC openly state those from fly over country are “un-cultured,” when reality is because they can’t understand other cultures, they look down on cultures other than their own. The USA started as 6 nations (13 states) held together by a common resistance to the Crown and being controlled by elites. All of which were held together by a common religion, protestant Christianity. The First Amendment exists because no single denomination of Christianity, could or would, be accepted by all the states. Quakers wouldn’t accept Methodism, etc. You know the reason they left England for the new world in the first place. Over time this federation adopted some other nations and is now around 11 nations and is starting to breaking up. Tribes (nations) have never long been able to live together under one rule unless forced, and even then it doesn’t last. Woodard mapped out the regions in his 2012 book "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America."

Because the bourgeois culture of the American Middle Class is Christian, and the reality that the USA is not one nation with shared language, culture and beliefs, the chances of the USA remaining one country are precisely zero. The white Christian middle has repeatedly turned the other cheek for over half a century, and the current elites and those who don’t embrace the protestant work ethic, are thinking this is weakness, and that they can impose their will on the Christian American Middle Class. Guess what, they are wrong. The Christian American Middle Class is prudent and disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed, but make no mistake We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

God help those ruling elite, BLM, and other leftists aligned against middle America. If they push much more, We the People will withdrawn our consent to their anti-Christian, destructive rule. As it becomes obvious that they are abusing and usurping authority in what appears to be both the pursuit and objective of reducing our government to absolute despotism. We the People will take our Duty seriously and exercise our right to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for our future security. . The patience and suffering of the Christian Middle Class, can only be pushed so far, and others should be afraid if (when) we determine that it is a necessity to alter our current system of government.

We are in the middle of a religious war, Satan has effectively taken control of the elites, the desperation by the exposure of their malfeasance is evident. Openly calling for the confiscation of middle class property and giving it to others who didn’t earn it, is evidence that they will not live in peace with Christian Middle Class America. Because Satan will not quit, the non-Christian elite and poor will not quit, and because We will not reject our God, and because we will not go gently into the night, there will be another Civil War, and it will be even more bloody than the last. It will not be in some distant future, it’s already started in anti-Christian strong holds, aka leftist controlled cities.

Prepare yourself!

Deepstate is Lying, in the Long Battle to End the Very Idea of the USA

Ask yourself why civics, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are no longer taught in our schools, and fight against both private and homeschooling?

Right now the Deepstate News is working double time to keep you afraid, they are canceling any writer or reporter or editor or comedian or ... that doesn't support the Deepstate and leftist thought.

They are using Covid-19 to gain power. Recognize that the Deepstate, and leftist groups talk about power, "empowering," etc. not about liberty or freedom, and seek to cancel those promoting liberty, especially the liberty to fail and responsibility to not force others to support your failure.

Covid-19 is about keeping you afraid, the Deepstate Media Complex is trying to keep you afraid so they can control you. They are lying to do so. They can't (although they want to) control all the news and information from you. If they could you wouldn't be able to see these stories. The reason the Deepstate wants to control the media, censor youtube, and all non-main stream media, is because they can't control the narrative. The Deepstate is using corporate cronies, like google and FB to censor and try to silence ideas they don't want the masses to see.

Long time suffer of Alzheimer's death with no evidence as Covid (My guess is because hospital makes more than 2X's as much when death is Covid related).

Death caused by motorcycle crash labeled Covid


Labs report 100% Positive for Covid

The reason civics isn't taught is because it takes away power and control from the ruling elite. The First Three Words of the constitution starts off with a slap in the face to ruling elite, who want you to accept that others know best how you should live your life. "We The People.." The Declaration of Independence is worse as far as the Deepstate is concerned. The DOI rightly acknowledges that government is instituted to protect the "unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of "We The People", Clearly stating that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, ... it is it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." The Deepstate doesn't want our children to know that they have not only a right, but a duty, to throw off the rule of their betters.

Any group, party, company, that is talking about power not liberty and freedom, is your enemy. The USA was founded on the idea that we are given unalienable rights by our Creator. Those seeking to tear it down or fundamentally change it are doing so because they are against the Creator. They worship the destroyer. The Left-Right ideological struggle is not real. Even the Nationalist-Globalist conflict is essentially a proxy for the real war, which is spiritual; between the servants of the Creator God and the servants of the god of this world.

This war began wen Adam first sinned, Western Civilization was founded on Christian ideas, it's success in creating a better life for more people than any other system of rule, who have been trying to end the very idea that "We The People" should not be ruled by our betters. The USA is a Christian Nation. We are fighting the barbarians who want not only to destroy Western Civilization, but return to tribalism. Lying about Covid to keep you afraid, is just another tactic used by evil to battle in the endless war against God's people. The Idea of the USA, is that the USA is a distinct Christian Nation with a government created to protect the unalienable rights of it's people and their progeny, not an ATM for the world, not the world's police, not a nation to rule the world, but a Nation, one of many, that God created for His purpose. The Nation God created, he can and will tear apart and disperse the people as he has done throughout history when man rejects Him.

Let’s not forget that John Stewart Mills in his treatise, On Liberty, said:

"A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy [barbarism] must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians."

July 4, 1776

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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. 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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Understand Entropy and You Understand Me

Life the World and Everything are Defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
By Tom Rhodes, 10/18/2018

If you understand Newton’s Second law of Thermodynamics, then you need all you need to know about me, and you probably have a better more accurate understanding the principles of the Libertarian Party.

I understand and use the scientific method as the best way to understand nature and physical existence. Human history and all scientific research has proven that Newton's Second Law of thermodynamics is true in physical science and for all manmade systems both physical and relational. The second laws fundamentally states: All changes occur such that at least some energy disperses: the total concentrated or organized energy of the universe decreases, the total diffuse or disorganized energy of the universe increases. Entropy measures the amount of order in a system and the universe.

Entropy can never decrease spontaneously. Unless purposeful controlled energy, aka work, is introduced into a system, entropy increases. All systems naturally go from order to disorder. Applied to life, the fundamental concept of entropy is that if you don’t take care of something (work on it) it turns to shit (disorder).

I've seen the effect of entropy in my own life, if you look you can see how entropy affects yours. I use practical application of this scientific principle to better understand my life, and to make my life better. I work on the principle that what I don't purposefully maintain will deteriorate.

Absent purposeful repair and attention my property deteriorates. ( guns rust, tires go flat, roofs leak, yard gets overgrown, pool turns green, carbs get gummed up, hard drives get fragmented, the list is endless)

Absent purposeful exercise my body deteriorates.

Absent purposeful exercise my mind deteriorates.

Absent purposeful practice my skills deteriorate.

Absent purposeful prayer and worship my soul deteriorates.

Absent purposeful time spent with others my relationship with them deteriorates.

Absent purposeful vigilance my liberty deteriorates.

Absent purposeful participation my culture deteriorates.

The Law of Entropy, is not compromising, has no feeling, and is an absolute LAW of Nature. To accomplish anything you must add purposeful work. You cannot coast through life without purpose and accomplish much. Randomly putting energy into something without purpose will only add chaos to your life. Just "doing" something won't fix anything. A forest fire adds lots of energy to the woods, but it won't turn a single tree into table. To make a table from a tree, takes purposeful ordered energy in the form of skilled work. Absent intelligent application of controlled amounts of energy, nature will always create more disorder.

I value accomplishment, because every human being on the planet can accomplish things in proportion to the abilities they possess, if they will just do what has proven to be effective. Because not every person has the same natural abilities, and not every person will choose to purposefully put in the same work, the outcomes for everybody will be different. To be just and honorable, we must insure that opportunities must be equal, but because of entropy, we must accept the reality that outcomes will be different. The reality is entropy - the inevitable decline into disorder, built into the fabric of the universe – is the true nemesis to what I can accomplish.

Because I believe in the scientific method, I value logic over feelings and emotion. This means that I believe that libertarian political ideas are the best political expression of Christian values and where implemented has produced more order (less chaos) and more good for more people than any other political ideology every devised by man. This means that I also reject both socialism and anarchy as they have repeatedly proven to increase entropy, and bring not only chaos but privation to the people subject to their implementation. As such your assertion that is contrary to evidence will dismissed.

I like good food, strong drink, well-crafted motorcycles and guns, good writing, talented musicianship, thoughtful art, I appreciate and respect both the talent God gave and effort it takes to create those things. I appreciate beautiful women, femininity and masculinity, and know the difference.

I understand you may have a different opinions about these things, and I respect your opinions at precisely the same level of enthusiasm with which your respect mine.

Insanity of the Left is Destroying Success

By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2017

“A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ~ Samuel Adams Feb. 12, 1779

Voicing the very same ideas that founding father Samuel Adams stated over 200 years ago, Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax gave a lecture, titled “Diverging Family Structure by Class and Race: Economic Hardship, Moral Deregulation or Something Else?” She noted that despite what they may say, the upper middle class and most successful people exhibit 50's era traditional Christian morals, and that the less a group of people embrace "bourgeois culture,” the less prosperous they are.

She presented statistical data that supported the fact that those who embrace our old moral traditions tend to be more successful than those who don't. She summarized the successful behaviors of "bourgeois culture” as, "Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."

This reads remarkably similar to Economists Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell's repeated editorials noting that if you complete high school, get a job, get married, and have kids, in that order you dramatically reduce the chance of living in poverty.

For over 200 years the message, by example, of successful people, has been that adhering to traditional Christian virtues is the most successful way to pursue happiness. It's almost as if God gave us the Commandments not for His sake, but for ours. Evidence that the Bible is the "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth."

Is it a coincidence that those who love liberty generally embrace bourgeois culture, and those who seek to silence ideas they don’t like, and force others to conform, and in general support a tyrannical powerful government, reject bourgeois culture? The insanity of the left, attacking hard work and self-discipline, and bourgeois culture, is self-evident. The vitriol and hatred leftists have exhibited to Professor Wax, and the left’s general attack on our liberties seems proportional to their rejection of virtues, clearly demonstrating that Sam Adams was right. The question is, why does the left tear down the very values that evidence indicates are those which bring prosperity, and happiness?

Bernie Sanders Commits Impeachable Offense

By Tom Rhodes, 6/9/2017

Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.

The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”

In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."

Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.

The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”

The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.

How to Destroy Two Lives with One Choice

by Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2017

Some things are gray, meaning they exist on some continuum without clear and distinct boundaries, good and bad, short to tall, light to heavy, dark to bright. Other things are distinctly binary and clear, top and bottom, on or off, yes or no, alive or dead.

To determine if a life is human is simple, if that life has human DNA, it is a human being. The life stages of a human being are from fertilized egg, to embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, and finally death. This is not controversial science, it is the same for all mammals.

To determine if something is alive or dead, scientifically when talking about cellular life it's simple, if it takes in food, eliminates waste, respirates, and cells are dividing, it's alive not dead. Until politics forced the change the definition of life so abortion could be rationalized, that was how cellular life was defined. Even more simply, The Dead Don't Grow.

Abortion kills a living human, PERIOD!

The sick and evil part is that in almost all cases, abortion is the killing of a living human simply because the mere existence of that human is inconvenient.

You can make up all the excuses you want, you are just rationalizing the killing of one human whose mere existence is inconvenient another. The new life being killed did nothing, is totally innocent, and only exists, because of the actions of others. Rationalizing the killing of an innocent, who is incapable of initiating actions against another, is immoral, wrong, and evil.

Knowing how detrimental abortion is to women, and knowing that pregnancy compromises their feelings, memory, and thinking, why do we allow pregnant women to choose to kill another human, because they "feel" they be better off, if that other human was dead? The men who would coerce a pregnant woman to make such a choice, don't have the excuse of being pregnant, and are just selfish and self-centered and should be held more culpable.

Pregnant women are emotionally and mentally compromised, the chemistry involved with pregnancy dramatically affects their brains. This has been observed for countless generations and is so well documented as to be uncontroversial.

"There is 15 to 40 times more progesterone and estrogen marinating the brain during pregnancy," Louann Brizendine, MD, director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, says. "And these hormones affect all kinds of neurons in the brain." We don't fully understand all the effects of pregnancy on the brain. Glynn and her colleague Curt A. Sandman, of University of the California Irvine, are doing something about that. Their review of the literature in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, discusses the theories and findings that are starting to fill what Glynn calls "a significant gap in our understanding of this critical stage of most women's lives." At no other time in a woman's life does she experience such massive hormonal fluctuations as during pregnancy. Dr. Glynn is clear saying, "There may be a cost" of these reproduction-related cognitive and emotional changes.

Letting women whose brains are influenced by hormones to such an extent that they sometimes cannot control their emotions, make life and death decisions for another person is criminal. The woman making the choice is not criminal, rather society is criminally negligent, for allowing a person whose emotions are known to be compromised due to the chemical imbalances associated with pregnancy make such decisions.

This is not to say that most women are not and cannot be rational during pregnancy, but anybody who's been around a pregnant woman KNOWS that their emotions and thinking are affected by the pregnancy. Letting a person who has a temporary condition known to compromise their thinking make life and death decisions is wrong. We don't let people who are temporarily drunk, choose to drive. We even hold bartenders culpable for allowing compromised people to drive. Yet we allow women known to be temporarily mentally compromised, choose to kill another human.

In a 2010 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion had a 98 percent increased risk for any mental health disorders compared to women who did not have an abortion.

The Study, "Aborted Women - Silent No More" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger. The science and research are clear with study after study showing that without doubt that abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse.

The vast majority of women who abort regret doing so later in life. The guilt and emotional turmoil of realizing that she choseto kill her own baby, destroys and gnaws at the psyche of a woman her entire life.

We know abortion kills a human being. We know that abortion is detrimental to women both physically and mentally. We know that pregnancy compromises a woman's feelings, memory, and thinking. Knowing all this, why would a rational civilized society allow pregnant women to choose to destroy two lives.

Embracing Barbarism: The Death of a Nation

By Tom Rhodes, 12/28/2016

Why should Modern Western Civilized Societies take barbarians, who don't value civilization, nor want to become civilized, who want what civilization produces, but reject what Modern Western Civilized Societies require? Why should barbarians be allowed to reap the benefits of Modern Western Civilized Societies , without conforming to the norms of that society?

Societies that don't value treat all people as equal in their laws and customs are not civilized. Modern Western Civilized Societies are based on the idea that all men are created in God's image, therefore by the basis of being an image bearer of God should be treated equally under the law, and be allowed all the same rights as any other person, regardless of race, class, sex, etc. etc. etc.

The result of not being willing to stand up against barbarian invasion is plainly evident in Europe. Violent crime, especially rape, is rising as the barbarians who’ve been allowed to enter unfettered, take what they want and not only refuse to conform to the norms of Modern Western Civilized Society, but demand that society conform to their barbarism.

Embracing barbarism, hedonism, and rejecting our Christian heritage, is bad enough. On a global scale this rejection and model for society is a direct way to the degradation and primitivization of culture. This has led to a demographic and moral crisis in the West.

Even Vladimir Putin has recognized, and observed this fact. In a recent speech he stated;

Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed, and been developed, over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity and become brutes. And we think it is right and natural to defend and preserve these Christian moral values.

One has to respect the right of every minority to self-determination, but at the same time there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority.

“At the same time as this process plays out at a national level in the West, we observe on an international level the attempts to create a unipolar, unified model of the world, to relativise and remove institutions of international rights and national sovereignty. In such a unipolar, unified world there is no place for sovereign states. Such a world needs merely vassals.

From a historical perspective, such a unipolar world would mean the surrender of one's own identity and of God-created diversity.

It is sad indeed when Vladimir Putin better articulates the value of diversity, sovereignty, and liberty, than our own democratically elected leaders in the west. Modern Western Civilized Societies refusing to stand up and protect the norms of their culture, are doomed to lose their culture.

“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” ~ Thomas Sowell

John Stuart Mill is often quoted by Libertarians. Mill's philosophical treatise, On Liberty, makes a very strong case for the radical permission of individuality. The problem is that libertarians skip and ignore other parts of that same treatise where he also makes strong claims for restrictions on barbarians. Even this permission of individuality had legal limits. In the first chapter of On Liberty, Mill recognized that barbaric peoples were to be placed under great restriction. Recognizing that radical liberty entrusted to barbarians is disastrous.

If Modern Western Civilized Societies are to confront the barbarian, even supposing that the civilization is in theory a liberal democratic republic, certain aspects of individuality must be condemned according to that nation's identity, with the majority acting for the whole. Whether these aspects are challenged by the state or by social means is dependent upon the circumstances, but reason and order demand that they cannot simply go unchallenged.

if America, as a Modern Western Civilized Society, is not wise nor strong enough to return to the God of her fathers, or to the Law which gave her liberty, then as her borders become meaningless, from both within and without those borders, will come forces she cannot oppose. They will come with smiling faces and murderous intents - to conquer not with the sword, but instead by pressing upon the hollow shell of a once civilized nation. The veneer that is our post-modern culture unsustained by its barbaric tenants, will give way. Then, like with Europe, our cities raped and pillaged and America's daughters will be at the mercy of the barbarian.

Let’s not forget that John Stewart Mills in his treatise, On Liberty, also said:

"A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy [barbarism] must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians."

Mass Migration is Proof that All Cultures are Not Equal.

By Tom Rhodes, 9/16/2015

Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Daniel Lapin in a television special, “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?” replied to that very question this way; “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

All cultures are not equal. Some are better than others. Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West. Over 4 million have left Syria in the past 4 years. The masses leaving the Islamic Middle East and north Africa are streaming into Europe, they dash not to Hungary and former communist Eastern Europe but to the heart of Christian Europe, Germany, England, etc.

No reason to ask why, the reason is so obvious that it need not be said. In fact because modern progressives are trying to attack the very reason that masses, when they vote with their feat, choose particular destinations: Christianity. Even if those same masses don’t accept or acknowledge that rationale, they gravitate to Christian nations.

The main reason behind the mass migration appears to be the suppression of freedom and the violence wrought under various Islamic governments and the relative freedom afforded by formerly Christian Europe. The mass migration we are seeing is prima facie evidence of the inferiority of Islamic culture. ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, and the other Islamic movements have, and are, failing at curing the tribulations of Arabic civilization. History and current events demonstrate that when Cultures based on Islam are left to act on their own, and not restrained by some outside force, always results in a violence and tyranny, and forceful aggression against other nations.

This proves that the idea that one culture is as good as another, that basically all cultures are equal, is just not true. Cultural relativism as an idea is demonstrably false. People are rejecting this idea propagated by overeducated idiots and voting with their feet. Whether the realize it or not, people are gravitating to countries whose cultures are rooted in Christianity.

Western society, be it European or American no longer acknowledges the contributions of Christianity, but as I’ve stated many times before America is at its root a Christian Nation.

For generations Cubans have been fleeing atheist Cuba. Just like the people in the tyrannical middle east, they flee cultures rooted in Christianity. People don’t build boats out of garbage and float across hurricane strewn, shark infested, waters to migrate to cultures that aren’t based on Christianity.

Are the Middle Eastern migrants risking their lives and fortunes to get into China? India? Turkey? Russia? The answer is unequivocally NO! What they want is liberty and freedom, and that isn’t offered by all cultures.

The sad tragic fact is that the USA is losing liberty and freedom, that loss coincides with the countries rejection of its Christian roots. Freedom and Liberty are blessings from God, and they flow directly from our Judeo-Christian traditions. That is blasphemy to most Libertarians, but without a doubt libertarianism is the political expression of the bible. The ideas of the rule of law, equality under the law, self-reliance, etc. etc. etc. are all biblical in nature.

Christ sums up most of libertarian philosophy quite well in the closing verses of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: you are free to enter into contracts as you see fit; they are binding and fair if freely entered; individuals have the right to distribute and use their property as they see fit; others don't have the right to determine what is "fair" about how others use their property. He summed up all this in three sentences at the end of a parable with a lot less words and more eloquence than I can.

Don’t try to say that they are going to where the wealth is, if that were the case, they’d be migrating to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait. Some of the richest countries in the world. Countries dominated by Islamic Culture. The wealth of Modern Western Civilization is a result of the people being allowed the liberty and freedom that embracing Christianity brought. If they were fleeing to where the wealth was, and wanted to continue to embrace the superiority of Islamic culture, they would be fleeing to the massively wealthy Middle East Countries that are closer than the Christian nations they seek. Clearly they are risking their lives to flee Islamic Culture and the violence and tyranny inherent in that culture.

The mass flight of people from the culture of Islam to Western culture rooted in Christianity, lays to waste the idea that all cultures are basically equal. Otherwise they would be fleeing to China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait. Once we accept that all cultures are not equal, then the idea of defending a culture that provides more liberty, freedom, wealth, and fat not starving poor people, can be once again accepted. If you believe that America is not a “Christian Nation” and our liberty and freedom are not based in the application of Biblical principles, then you probably believe I’m a Big Fat Black Lesbian who Hates Hunting. The people of Islamic Nations are voting with their feet, their votes shout loud and clear that Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West.

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?

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.

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).

The Fall of America was Predicted in 1799

By Tom Rhodes, 4/6/2015

There is no question we are losing our liberty to a more tyrannical centralized government. We have more laws and regulations restricting us than any person can possibly know, much less observe. The sad fact is that this loss of liberty and freedom was observed in the past and predicted in the future. America was a Christian nation, the successful removal of our Christian roots from our culture has resulted as foretold in our loss of liberty and decline of our formerly great nation.

In 1799, Jedidiah Morse, most noted for inventing Morse Code and making the technology of the telegraph rampant, gave an “election sermon.” In that he clearly pointed out where we owed our civil freedom and how it could be lost, saying; “To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. I hold this to be a truth confirmed by experience … If so, it follows, that all efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”

It is clear that today as we see overt attacks on the pillars of Christianity, we are also seeing the blessings of our freedoms fall. There is an overt war on Christianity and the result is exactly as predicted by Morse. Actually exercising religious freedom is now a crime, the government wants to force people to act and do business against their faith. It’s taken over half a century but the sad fact is the war on Christianity has succeeded in destroying the very culture that made Liberty and Freedom a viable form of government and way to live. The overt attacks on the institutions and behavior have succeeded in destroying the fabric of society. Our society and culture was once faithful, civil, and virtuous society that made freedom and liberty possible. The traditional family is now a rarity. Consider 43% of our children are now born to unwed mothers, a mere %5 of our children were bastards just a half century ago. Worse yet we’ve murdered 56 million babies through abortion.

George Washington in his famous farewell address echoed Jedidiah Morse warning a burgeoning new nation, that religion and morality are “indispensible” to “political prosperity” and he cautioned against “the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

“Freedom of Religion” is not “Freedom from Religion.” Christianity is unique in it is based on a voluntary acceptance of a gift from God. Our Bill of Rights is based on solid Christian principles, including the right to reject God if you desire. God is clear, you are free to reject Christ, but you will be allowed suffer the consequences of that choice. As a nation we are rejecting Christ, as we do so we are watching a great nation suffer the consequences, foremost is the loss of life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness that accompanied a culture rooted in Christianity.

Our forefathers knew what would happen, and it is happening exactly as they predicted. The Facebook meme is rooted in truth. “Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do study history are doomed to standby helplessly while everyone else repeats it.”

Moral Rot = Less Liberty

By Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2014

The bottom line is that America has lost its moral compass. Deficits, runaway national debt, unbridled federal spending are the symptoms of Americas Moral Decay. There is no moral backbone in America. The citizenry now openly demands congress forcibly use some Americans to serve the purposes of others. As a nation, we are suffering from a deep seated moral rot, that is most evidenced by the end of the Rule of Law.

We now routinely substitute legally allowable for morally right. Of course it is legal to stone women for adultery is some nations today, that does not make it morally right. Walter Williams has been talking about this for years. He poses this question: “Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another?” Note he doesn’t ask if it’s legal, but rather asks if its moral.

Let’s think about it using a Professor Williams example: “Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person's money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman.” His question is by forcing another person to pay for a charity he cares about has he a crime?

If you honestly answer yes, and you hopefully believe that taking the property of another is theft, even if they plan on giving it to somebody needy. Now the more difficult part, as Dr. Williams proposes; “Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person's money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person's $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person's $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person's $200?” He clearly illustrates how making an action legal, does not morally justify that action.

There is a very old and very famous quote that says: “the more corrupt a state the more numerous its laws.” The USA is a representative republic, those elected to the represent the people reflect the people. It is obvious that there is moral rot in our elected leaders. The higher up the more obvious the rot. The current president has no regard for the rule of law, separation of powers, or telling the truth. In fact a large number of people openly say it’s OK to for the president to lie in order to get congress to do what he wants. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

The GOP in 2010 elected a lot of representatives based on support of the TEA Party. Overwhelmingly those newly elected representatives voted for the statist positions against their promises to their constituents and those who supported them as soon as they got power. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Today you don’t dare criticize the opinions of a college co-ed porn star, that automatically makes you a misogynist woman hater. Criticize the character of a liar who happens to be black and your racist. Expose the character of any politician, especially liberal, and your attacked. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Our schools now teach innocent pre-pubescent children about gay sex, anal sex, alternative life styles, and how to put condoms on bananas while parents dress up their little girls like trollops. As a society we no longer protect, much less value the innocence of children. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Unless we elect people of character, regardless of their race, sex, political party, etc. there is no hope for the USA ever being the land of liberty it once was. Until and unless the people of the country are willing to live with the consequences of their own life decisions, instead of voting for the use of force to make others pay for their bad life choices, the USA ever being the land of liberty it once was.

History is pretty clear, repeatedly civilizations have become prosperous, then decadent, then fallen back to barbarism. Never in history has any civilization that has become decadent survived. What do you call a society that decries those who would dare criticize a porn star, and calls “disgusting” and silences a girl who demonstrates wholesome self-sufficiency, as the past couple weeks have shown our society did?

The moral compass of America is screwed up. Historically societies that become decadent fall, Rome being a primary example. The USA is not exempt from cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations. We are seeing as moral rot in the USA increases liberty, even freedom of speech, decreases. The Bible has an entire book dedicated to the privation and suffering that occurs when the people as a whole morally decay – Judges. Follow the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, and people prosper and have liberty, abandon those basic instructions, and suffer and are enslaved, repeat. Moral Rot = Less Liberty. History and current events are proving our forefathers right, the Constitution is wholly inadequate for an immoral people.

Look Her in the Eye

4/28/2014 12:01:00 AM - Mike Adams

Teenager: Dr. Adams, may I have a few minutes to speak with you?

Me: Sure. What is your name? (Gives name).

Teen: I enjoyed listening to your talk on abortion just a few minutes ago. Your points were solid. But I have just one problem. It’s with the rape exception. Can you honestly tell me that you could look a rape victim in the eye and tell her that she could not have an abortion and that she must take the rapist’s baby to term?

Me: (pulls out phone). Yes. Give me the number of any pregnant rape victim you know and I will call her right now and talk to her. I can’t look her in the eye but I will talk to her.

Teen: (Laughing nervously). I don’t know any pregnant rape victims.

Me: Well, before I put my phone up, can I ask a favor of you?

Teen: Sure.

Me: I have a friend who was conceived in rape. Do you mind if I call her and give you the phone so you could explain why it would be permissible for her be killed just because she was conceived in rape? Her mother is still alive, by the way. I’m sure that her continued existence reminds her mother of the rape. My friend’s name is Laura.

Teen: No, I won’t do that. She shouldn’t be killed, now. That isn’t my position.

Me: Oh, I see. You think that there is some difference between the adult she is now and the embryo she once was that would have justified killing her at that earlier stage of development.

Teen: I see what you are doing. This is the SLED thing, isn’t it?

Me: Yes it is. Size, level of development, environment (whether she is inside or outside of the womb), and degree of dependency. These are the four differences people generally rely upon when they say you can kill the unborn but not the born. Which one is it?

Teen: Well, none of them, I guess. I see your point.

Me: Good. Now, let’s talk about who benefits when the child conceived in rape is aborted.

Teen: Ok.

Me: Would I, or any of the close friends of Laura, have benefited from her death at the hands of the abortion doctor? I mean, would it not have been a tragedy had her friends never known her?

Teen: Well, yes, I suppose it would have been a tragedy.

Me: Well, how about Laura? Would she have benefited from the abortion?

Teen: No, of course not.

Me: Ok, then who benefits?

Teen: Well, the rape victim benefits. Obviously.

Me: But is it really obvious?

Teen: I think it is.

Me: You know if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex and has a crisis pregnancy it is a toss-up as to whether she will have the abortion. But if she’s raped and becomes pregnant then the chances she’ll abort are much lower.

Teen: How much lower?

Me: The odds are about three to one that she won’t abort. It may seem counterintuitive but it really isn’t difficult to understand upon further consideration. She’s just been the victim of a violent crime. She identifies with the evil of violence and is reluctant to inflict it on another human being. So she usually decides to suffer evil rather than inflict it.

Teen: I’ll have to think about that one.

Me: Good. It will give me time to ask you another question.

Teen: Okay.

Me: You believe that the woman impregnated by a rapist will suffer great stress bringing the baby to term. You obviously believe that the abortion will reduce that stress. But your argument turns on the assertion that the stress saved by the abortion will actually outweigh any guilt she might experience over the memory of the abortion for the duration of her life. Is that a fair characterization of your reasoning?

Teen: Yes, that’s fair enough.

Me: Well, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you point me to some evidence?

Teen: No, I was just speculating.

Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.

Teen: Well maybe I just have some maturing to do as I think about this issue.

Me: I’m not sure it’s really a thinking problem.

Teen: What do you mean?

Me: You have a steady girlfriend, don’t you?

Teen: Yes, I do.

Me: Are you sleeping with her?

Teen: What? I’m not answering that question.

Me: Well, you don’t have to answer it. You just did. You’re sleeping with her.

Teen: Ok … what does that have to do with the discussion?

Me: Well, everything.

Teen: Please explain.

Me: Every time I am in a discussion of abortion that turns to the so called rape exception, there are two common denominators. First, it is always a guy. Second, he’s always sexually active. If he is sleeping with a lot of women he really supports unrestricted abortion. So he just feigns concern for the rape victim in order to preserve unrestricted abortion so he can have unrestricted sex. Then there are guys like you who are just sleeping with a girlfriend and want to preserve a tiny crack in the wall — a safety valve just in case you get into trouble. The idea of an absolute ban on abortion makes you nervous because you are taking risks you know you ought not to be taking.

Teen: I guess everything you are saying makes sense. Maybe I just need to grow up.

Me: No, not really. You pulled me aside and started this conversation because your conscience was bothering you. You weren’t really worried about the rape issue. You were worried about your own circumstances. That’s why it took courage to initiate the conversation. You knew I wasn’t going say things you wanted to hear. You were mature at the beginning of this conversation and you are even more mature now.

Teen: Thanks.

Me: Now it is time to stop treating you girlfriend like she’s already your wife. It will clear your mind and help you make better decisions on a whole range of moral issues. Remember that it is always better to decide what you believe and let your beliefs guide your behavior. When it’s the other way around, you become lost and you eventually lose your moral compass altogether. You eventually become a law unto yourself.

Teen: Well, how do I explain this to my girlfriend?

Me: Well, that should be easy. Tell her you are not yet ready to be a parent. Tell her that if she became pregnant it would be your child, too. Make sure you look her in the eye and firmly tell her that you could never allow her to abort your child. In other words, start living your life according to rules instead of clinging to exceptions.

+++++++++++++

Editors Note: I stole this from Mike Adams Because it is one of the best arguments against to abortion.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington

Rule of Law / Worldview

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state is divine

State authority is unlimited

Which leads to state worship

Resulting in tyranny

Based on evolution

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

The state is divinely ordained (Exodus 18:21)

State authority is limited

Which leads to patriotism

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

Based on creation

America is a republic not a democracy. The difference is world view, a republic is ruled by law a democracy is ruled by opinion. Well we used to have a republic based on a Christian world view, today we have a tyranny based on worshiping the state. Statist leaders get angry that the people don’t just obey their tens of thousands of laws, they firmly believe that the ruling elite know better how everybody should live and reject the rule of law. Imagine if a congressman got caught doing drugs and was subjected to the same treatment as a 20 yr old black man. The rule of is dead.

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

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

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

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

The Cross is Offensive

By Tom Rhodes 10/20/2012

Like no other religious symbol the world finds the cross offensive. In Galatians 5:11 Paul wrote, "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished." Paul was under attack when he wrote those words because he was making it very clear that there is only one way to salvation. Preaching that we can only be saved through the cross of Christ is a message that the world finds offensive.

Proof that Paul was right can be seen today in the actions of Louisiana State University who purposefully edited out the cross in this image.

This is a group of students called “The Painted Posse,” who paint their bodies with LSU school colors and small crosses for every home game.

What LSU published was this:


LSU officials reasoning was they didn’t want to offend non Christians.

The question is why does the world expect Christians to be tolerant of all other beliefs, but is totally intolerant of Christianity? The fact is the bible is the source of libertarian beliefs, it is Christians who eventually ended acceptance of slavery in the western world, it is Christians that pushed for equal rights and tolerance of other beliefs. Other religions don’t share such beliefs and are not willing to fight for others regardless of beliefs as Christians are. The example of the cross and what it means, shames others to such a degree as they find the Cross offensive. Over 100 years ago C.H. Spurgeon preached on the subject, and it has been a theme in seminaries and sermons for as long as there has been a Church.

The rule of law, rather than rule of dictates by Imams, dictators, kings, etc. is based on Christian principles. In The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny, Augusto Zimmermann clearly shows how the rule of law as an effective check on tyranny has its roots in Christianity.

“The rule of law is therefore far more than the mere existence of positive laws, as it also requires the state to act in accordance with principles of a ‘higher law’. The search for such ‘higher law’ implies, however, a moral discussion on what laws ought to be. If so, the rule of law becomes an impracticable and even undesirable achievement for societies not subject to certain patterns of cultural and religious behaviour. On the other hand, any radical change in such patterns can certainly produce undesirable consequences for the realization of the rule of law.”

Consider Islam; Islamists find the Cross offensive because it points out that unlike Christianity, Islam condones unequal treatment of believers and non-believers, it condones lying to unbelievers, it condones murder of unbelievers. The standard Christ set is impossible and the only means of salvation is through him, thus those who reject the cross cannot tolerate and find offensive the standard the cross represents because it clearly shows that they fall short.

LSU is well within its right to censor the image, they have freedom of speech. The fact that they recognize that the cross is offensive is further testimony to the Truth, that is Jesus Christ.

Democrats' Dream for America

By Tom Rhodes, 9/6/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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