Caught Again, Cooking the Science Books

By Tom Rhodes, 6/23/2014

What is plainly obvious is that global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. We continue to see lies, fraud, and fictitious data to support the idea that the globe is warming because of man’s undue influence on the climate. Soon we will see the foundation of AGW theory to fabricated and fraudulent.

This is the truth, before government statists got ahold of the data.



The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

What we have now is yet another example condemning stastists. Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science provides this example shows how shamelessly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has manipulated the graph of US surface temperature records, which has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.

This is yet more proof that skeptics of global warming (aka deniers) have been consistently correct.

Why the Divide in Politics will get Worse!

By Tom Rhodes, 5/14/2014

The reason America seems so divided is because it is. In big ways that polite society doesn’t talk about. That is because the country no longer has a set of shared goals. Specifically the left believes statism and control are more important than liberty, to the point that they would rather everybody universally poor than for there to be free individuals who the state doesn’t monitor and control. The idea that an average person outside of the ruling elite could become more successful and be outside of ruling elites control is not tolerable.

It’s not that they care if any individual is rich or poor, but that the ruling elite are in control. Consider California, where massive numbers of productive citizens are leaving in record numbers, the economy sucks and cannot support itself; 600,000 industrial jobs gone in the last 15 yrs; electricity 50% higher than national average; millionaires in 47 other states pay less income tax than a middle class worker earning $48K does in California; Public employee pentions are bankrupting the entire state; California has 25 billion barrels of oil sitting untapped in the Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits, yet sends billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere to buy natural gas and oil that it could have produced itself; Twitter, Telsa, Toyota, Adobe, eBay, Occidental petroleum, ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, and Oracle, among other major California companies, have moved or announced they will move out of California to another US State. The laws and regulations of California are driving away people and business. Despite the humiliating economic statistics, California Democrats continue the same statist path.

The reason is clear jobs, companies, and individuals living in California are not the goals for those in charge. Prosperity is not important to the left. Power and control are their goals, in fact the worse the economy, the more people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the more control statists have over those people and more importantly more will vote for whoever promises more stuff from government, Democrats.

Consider guns. The facts are pretty clear, all of the dire predictions have proven to be false. More guns and more people allowed to carry guns rather than result in increased crime as proven to reduce overall violent crime to levels not seen in a century (you wouldn’t know that reading the statist MSM). The hatred over guns is not that you might use them for self-protection, or that they might be used in crime, but that the people might successfully stop the increase in state power. Bundy in Nevada proved exactly what the left fears; that an armed society can and will stand up to an oppressive over controlling government. The second amendment severely restricts the power of the ruling elite, it’s hard to control an armed population.

Consider Freedom of Speech and the entire Bill of Rights. The statist LA Times won’t even allow dissenting opinions on subjects used to control the people to be printed. The left loudly cheered the NFL chastising and forcing Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who dared tweet offense at the faggot kiss of the first openly gay NFL player, to pay a fine and be forced go to indoctrination camp to learn how to think correctly. Soon the statist gay mafia will declare it illegal to be a Christian and publicly read the bible. Look at how Tebow was treated compared to the new NFL fairy.

Rule of law – statists believe they aren’t subject to the same rules, and can ignore the representatives of the people. Obama changing Obamacare dozens of times without legal authority is proof enough. But claiming that he can execute US citizens without due process means that we know the government no longer plays by the rules so We the People don’t have to either. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution clearly states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Because the statists in Washington are not able to control everything and every body, they are openly violationg the constitution; Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is openly and purposefully proposing what he clearly knows to be unconstitutional ex post facto legislation, saying "I don't approach retroactivity in legislation lightly, but corporations must understand that they won't profit from abandoning the US..." Power is more important than the rule of law.

The reason we are seeing such division and strife in American politics is because we the statist left, does not share the American Dream, in fact they want to “fundamentally change” the country to rule by elite oligarchy. It will only get worse prepare for it.

Statists Lose in Supreme Court

By Tom Rhodes, 4/3/2013

By now you’ve read and heard the statist news media bemoan the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution stating that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech it meant what it plainly says. This is a victory for freedom and liberty, and a loss for statism.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

What statists, especially liberals, don’t like, don’t want, and actually hate, is the fact that in the USA the government not the people is limited. The idea that an individual may exercise freedom and do things that are contrary to the supremacy of the state is repugnant to statists. There is this think called freedom. Statists hate it. Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Free Press, are all under massive attack by statists.

They are attacking bloggers, and other people because they bring stories that the main stream news ignores to the attention of the people. Stories statists don’t want covered. The idea that an individual, the little guy, a common person can freely blog and present “news” outside of corporate/state control is a position statists find intolerable. This is why Hillary famously said that the news needs some “gatekeeper.” Of course the fact that that the Government is prohibited from infringing on the right of people to offer news and opinion without any kind of government interference means they are exposed. The internet has destroyed the defacto state/press control of media that used to exist. Statists hate this.

They also attack rich people spending their money to get their ideas presented. Again the idea that an individual can actually put his resources to promoting candidates and ideas without going through some state “gatekeeper” and without limits is intolerable. Freedom for the individual is not an idea statists can abide. It is a red-herring that individuals having too much freedom to spend their money on politics causes corruption.

The court rightly found that it makes no sense that an individual can give the limited amount to nine candidates, but not the 10th.

The Constitution is clear, Congress cannot abridge the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Spending money to promote a candidate or idea has long been held as the exercise of those freedoms. There is one way in the USA to make such laws constitutional. Change the constitution. I don’t think changing the 1st Amendment to read “Congress shall have the authority to limit how much individuals may spend expressing their ideas, especially concerning political candidates, and may create laws to act as “gatekeepers” to the press determining who can and can’t publish the news and what news is suitable for the public, and what government actions are “newsworthy” is going to fly. That is exactly how statists want to treat individuals from poor basement bloggers to wealthy eccentrics, they don’t want the individual to have the ability nor right to actually effect politics.

The constitution was written uniquely not to grant privileges to the people, but to curb and limit the powers of government. The reasoning was clear and is as viable today as 2 centuries ago; limiting government insures liberty and freedom for individuals, dividing power in government helps reduce the corruption that power inevitably brings.

The solution is take away power from centralized government so that even if a politician is bought off they won’t have the power to hurt us. Corruption in government is not the result of individuals having too much freedom, but government having too much power.

Real Rationale to Zero Tolerance

By Tom Rhodes, 3/5/2014

By now you’ve read a zillion stories about the absurdity of zero tolerance enforcement in our schools. Kids being suspended for pop-tart eaten into gun shapes, kids suspended or expelled for accidentally bringing a squirt gun to school, kids being suspended or expelled for Nerf guns, kids suspended or expelled for shooting a completely imaginary ‘bow and arrow’, and so forth. The latest is a boy suspended for 3 days for using his finger as an imaginary gun.

Bill Bush of The Columbus Dispatch wrote about the latest idiocy on March 4, 2014 in an article titled “Boy points finger like gun, gets suspended.” If you’ve read about any of the many other idiotic extremes in “zero tolerance” so you know the story. The quote from the principle gives us a hint about the true reason for statist zero tolerance rules in school. “The kids were told, ‘If you don’t stop doing this type of stuff, there would be consequences,’” Warner said. “It’s just been escalating.” Warnings included three newsletters sent home with kids, he said. More interesting and illuminating is reading the comments. It gives away the real reasoning behind Zero Tolerance rules and these absurd punishments for innocent behavior.

The reason for both an baseless rule and excessive punishment for violating the baseless rule is simple and Machiavellian. Think about the absurdity of suspending a 10 yr old boy for 3 days on a “weapons violation” for pointing his finger and saying “bang!” The purpose has nothing to do with “guns” it has everything to do with conditioning people to obey “laws” regardless of how absurd the law is or expect draconian disproportionate punishment. The idea being that you a mere individual has cannot conceive of how important any law is and must be indoctrinated to accept without question all rules/laws/dictates and obey or be made an example to others.

Guns are scary to liberals, so they use the fear of real guns to justify idiotic baseless rules that can be used to train kids to be obedient to the state. The idea that parents should take the time to stress to their kids how important it is to obey the state regardless of what rule the state creates. The boy, Nathan, when asked about his suspension said, “I was thinking it was dumb.” A 10 yr old knows that pretending his finger is a gun in a playground game isn’t going to hurt anybody and is not dangerous. The reality is that the state has sent out warnings and newsletters and repeated threats go garner compliance with a rule pretending to use a tool that is constitutionally protected. Now it has made good on the threat and without due process the boy has been suspended.

State Sen. Charleta Tavares, a Columbus Democrat, proposed legislation that would overturn a 1998 state law requiring schools to adopt zero-tolerance policies. Oh they will have hearings and make like they are considering it but it will never be allowed to get voted on, much less pass. It goes against the strength and supremacy of the state. What zero tolerance and it’s abusive implementation does does is teach children that the state can create any rules it wants no matter how absurd, and punish you for totally innocent behavior which harms nobody, and that no rationally authority, like your parents, can do anything to protect you from the arbitrary punishment of the state.


“The kids were told, ‘If you don’t stop doing this type of stuff, there would be consequences,’” and then saw or suffered real disproportionate consequences; this is conditioning. That way in the future when the state says “quit criticizing the state or there will be consequences” or some other clearly irrational and unconstitutional “rule”, those same kids will obey rather than suffer the consequences.

What’s happened in Connecticut, where a couple hundred thousand people simply ignored the dictates of the state to register their arms, is the problem. The idea that common people would simply ignore the state is what the state is trying to address through zero tolerance in schools. Train children that no matter what, non-compliance is worse than suffering tyranny. Common Core, is part of that, common indoctrination of state supremacy is the goal. Zero Tolerance for obviously innocent behavior is not designed because the state is afraid of a pop tart eaten into the shape of a gun, it’s there as a tool to indoctrinate obedience to the state.

Civility of a Bully

By Tom Rhodes, 11/27/2013

There is lots of talk today about how uncivil politics in America has become. How the hate and uncompromising attitudes between politicians is hurting the country. That's crap, compared to the past today's congressmen and politicians are models of etiquette and decorum.

In 1856 Senator Sumner delivered a speech denouncing a political position and not only liabled Senator Brooks' home state, but publically mocked his relatives. In General Senator Sumner was bullying all those who didn't agree with him. Two days later Senator Brooks confronted Sumner on the senate floor, and before their conversation was over, Brooks, in a frenzy, beat Sumner over the head at least 30 times with a gold-headed cane. Sumner, his legs trapped under the bolted-down desk, finally wrenched it loose from the floor and collapsed with his head covered with blood. Obviously today's ranting and raving is civilized in comparison. What Senator Brooks did was wrong, but is the commonly observed over reaction of the victim of relentless bullying.

Of course that uncivil behavior by congress reflected the mood of the nation at the time and less than a decade later we had some civil unrest in an event that is officially known as The War Between the States.

The Civil War was preceded by politicians who quit debating ideas and principles, and instead resorted to ad hominem attacks and vilified their opponents, dehumanizing and bullying them. Today we see those supporting statism and tyranny resorting to the same tactics. Statists are using bullying not discussion to attempt to silence their opponents. One of the many ways this is evidenced is their resorting to labeling and name calling those who have honest rational differences with the president as racists, in an attempt to silence differing views. If you've ever been bullied as a kid you know there are only three ways to deal with a bully: move away and distance yourself so that he has no influence over your; physically stand up to him and fight, win or lose make bullying you so painful that the bully goes hunting someplace else; or submit to the bully.

If you submit, the bully always takes more until you have nothing worth taking and he goes on to better pickings, or you are a virtual slave until you move away, so submitting although not confrontational is only good for the bully, and reinforces the behavior. Moving away from a bully may not be possible, and even if successful results in emboldening the bully because his tactics were successful.

The option I didn't mention is the current statist dogma taught to children, to tell some adult and the people in charge will protect you. If you've ever been bullied you know that this is a laughable solution and only results in more bullying. Adults can't watch you 24/7 and the bully will get even and make things far worse. The reality is that the people in charge have ZERO accountability to protect any individual, nor obligation to protect any individual. On larger scales the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that police and government have no legal obligation to protect anybody. Ask anybody who's been attacked after seeking government protection and getting a "restraining order" on the person threatening them. The truth is that only you are responsible for you and your family's security, PERIOD! If you don't deal with the bully, he will continue to bully you.

The one and absolutely most effective way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him and make it so painful that he quits bullying you. Even if you lose the fight, if you inflict enough pain, the bully either quits completely or reverts to much less severe actions. When a bully pushes too far and you end up with a kid going berserk and an abrupt vicious violent fight. Bullies pick on the weak, they are generally cowards, and work on the premise that might makes right.

The same can be said for our statist government. It picks on small businesses not strong enough to stand up to it, granting exceptions to their bullying to big corporations and unions who are so strong it's too costly to fight. The same for treatment of individuals, they keep taking more and more using the threat of force to all those who have something to take, while avoiding the few strong enough to fight back.

Today we see record numbers of people exiting the country, an effective means of distancing yourself from a bully.

Today we see people purposefully reducing their income to a point that they are no longer worth the bullies effort.

Today most people meekly give the bully our lunch money rather that get beat up. As our Declaration of Independence notes, " all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable."

Today we see the bully being bought off so he goes looking somewhere else, just look at the number of congressional family members working for as lobbyists. Remember Joe Biden saying he was going to go after and investigate Video Gaming Industry in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. You don't hear much about that anymore, could it have anything to do with the massive increase in lobby dollars spent by the Video Game Industry since then. The mere threat of "investigation" and doing something about the Video Game Industry lead to a massive increase in their lobbying efforts. Obviously they don't even have to create laws to extort money from big business, the mere threat of laws is enough to line their coffers.

The fact is we as a people now must treat our government like a bully. Cheating on your taxes is now viewed the same as hiding some of your lunch money in your sock so the bully doesn't find it. The rule of law is dead, making friends with the bully means you get to get away with stuff the uncool kids can't. It worked for BP who waved a mere $20B at the president and the government then picked up the tab for trillions of dollars of damage caused by the Gulf Oil Spill.

Let's hope the bully, that is now our statist government, doesn't push much harder and rejects the tactics of Senator Sumner, the result could end up the same. The people of America are like the fat kid in this now famous video, at some point we will get fed up.



Although Americans 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."

Ask King George what happened when the liberty loving people of former colonies get fed up with his bullying.

Is Detroit Our Starnesville?

By Tom Rhodes, 7/24/2013

Detroit reminds me of a quote from the Grail Knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, "He chose poorly." In the movie the evil bastard who "chose poorly" shrivels up and turns to ancient ruins because of his "enlightened" choice, so too has Detroit. Indy who didn't choose poorly did not suffer the same fate. Just like in the movie those who "chose wisely" don't suffer the same fate, nor should they.

Detroit is the manifestation of those who "chose wisely" going Galt. It is precisely the condition and outcome that result from the reality of implementing the utopian ideas of so called progressives. Detroit mirrors Starnesville, a car-manufacturing city that became a ghost town after experimenting with socialism. You can read about it in Ayn Rand's 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged."

The federal government and tax payers from the other 50 states should under no circumstances bail out Detroit. It should be allowed to go bankrupt. The citizens of Detroit should be allowed to suffer the consequences of their choices: specifically their voting decisions. It is the citizens of Detroit who are at fault for Detroit's demise not the rest of the nation. Every single voter in Detroit who voted for politicians who expanded the government of Detroit is responsible.

Let's hope Detroit isn't the indicator that Starnesville was in the novel. In Atlas Shrugged, the demise and failure of Starnesville was the harbinger of the collapse of the entire society. Detroit and its current bankrupt condition is the direct result of who the people of Detroit elected. Those who were disproportionately taxed and had to pay for the utopian ideas of the elected leaders, when it was obvious that their vote for responsible government and free enterprise were ineffective, voted with their feet; they moved. The auto industry built plants in Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, etc. they quit building and expanding in Detroit. The empty wasteland of factories in Detroit is evidence of the reality of implementing enlightened ideas of the statist leftists. The voters of these states, who elected people that created laws and an environment more inviting to auto manufactures than Detroit and Michigan did, are not responsible and should not have to bail out the voters who embraced the empty promises of Democrats.

Detroit since 1962 has been run by Democrats. Since then it has made itself uncompetitive with other parts of the USA and the world. The bankruptcy of Detroit is what will happen to the entire country if we continue to elect "progressives." Jobs going overseas are a direct result of the government tyranny and easily predicted (read Atlas Shrugged). Utopian thinking of how things should be; how people should act; and their enlightened redistribution of wealth, is emotional not rational thought. Leftist thinking ignores the history of mankind and the very nature of man. The increase in the size and scope of government and the increase in oppression of productive people is manifesting itself in the actions of people going Galt. Actual participation in the labor force is at historic lows. Expansion of business is at historic lows, hording capital rather than investing is the order of the day. Protecting existing wealth (usually off shore) is now more important than using that wealth industriously.

The entire premise of progressives and their leadership is that they the ruling elite know how things should be, and by virtue of their enlightened understanding they should have the power and authority to determine how property is distributed regardless of any individual's wants, desires, talents, and labor. If they had the power they would control and eliminate the right to travel, and the right to sell and use private property. People exercising these rights, moving and taking their money and stuff with them, has lead to a mass exodus of Detroit. My family escaped Detroit in 1972. Utopian thinking Democrats became a majority in Detroit, elected Detroit's leaders, and chased away all the producers and borrowed and spent Detroit into bankruptcy. Let them suffer the consequences of their choices and actions, and let it be a model to every city and voter what happens when you elect big union progressive Democrats and let them implement their "progressive" plans.

The result of the implementation of Democrat's policies is clear. In half a century it turned Detroit from arguably the most industrious city in the world with the highest wages, into a third world hellhole where less than half the population is self supporting. Starnesville was the harbinger of the collapse of society in Atlas Shrugged, is Detroit our Starnesville?

TEA Party Wins (and the Statists Don't Even Know They Were Beat)

By Tom Rhodes, 2/6/13

Although the press, and Obama, and the establishment GOP, are all claiming the TEA Party is dead, they are trying to hide the facts. The TEA Party effectively won. The TEA in TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. In exchange for a modest tax increase on those earning more than $400K (not Obama's promised $250K) 99% of the Bush Tax cuts were made permanent, And real spending cuts are going to happen. Obama is now begging to kick the can down the road again so that the Sequester doesn't go into effect. Knowing GOP history he was confident in 2011 when he proposed the automatic cuts and insisted they become law, that he could keep spending. He was confident that the GOP would kick the can down the road and never let defense spending be cut. Oops, he discounted the TEA Party.

The problem is the people are tired of having their children sent to places that don't want us in a never ending war without any clear military objectives; while Obama sells F16 fighters to Islamists we are fighting in other countries. The TEA party elected people who promised to cut the size of government and demands those elected keep their promise. The ruling elite in Republican Party has declared open war on the TEA party, it upsets the statist model, insuring more and more government.

The TEA Party representatives have stealthily won. The Statists in both the Democrat and Republican parties now have to defend increasing taxes or not cutting spending with real votes, which they know will cost them support in the next election, or let the cuts happen. This is a Win-Win situation for the TEA Party, if representatives elected vote to tax or spend more, they know they will lose the next election, if they vote as promised the government will get about 11% smaller; not enough of a downsizing, but a start. In any case the TEA Party wins, with either more representation next election, or its real goal, a smaller government.

Let the Democrats crow about defeating the Republicans, the tax cuts made permanent is a TEA Party win. Let the Democrats cry, Obama insisted on the sequester, so there will be real government downsizing, a TEA Party win.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, scolded Mr. Obama for lecturing Congress about the need to avoid the cuts he proposed saying, "If Democrats have ideas for smarter cuts, they should bring them up for debate, but the American people will not support more tax hikes in place of the meaningful spending reductions both parties already agreed to and the president signed into law."

Obama hasn't presented a budget. The Democrats haven't presented any alternatives. The plain facts are that the redistributive economic policies of Obama (and liberal statist Bush) have failed miserably. The fact that we are in a protracted economic depression and only Government spending artificially propping up the GDP numbers, allows the ruling elite to claim otherwise. Even that is now failing and we will most likely have an official recession again in the next few months. This one will be all Obama, even if he tries to blame Bush, it will be his continuing of the statist policies that prolonged and deepened the economic morass we are now in. It is now Obama's problem.

You'll have to do some digging because the press has tried to keep it quiet, but look at Iceland. Rather than force the citizens of Iceland to assume massive government debt, they let the banks take the hit. Iceland decided not to follow the rest of the world by bailing out the bankers. Instead, they chose to arrest them. Now their economy is recovering faster than the EU and the United States. But then they arrested corrupt bankers instead of approving millions in bonuses like the US. The idea that the government must bail out banks, or their will be economic collapse has been distinctly disproven. In the same 4 years the US has wallowed and stagnated, Iceland has become more economically stable, GDP is up well over 3% and unemployment is down to 6% and still falling.

The only real hope we have is if government spending is dramatically cut; true austerity. But that won't happen as long as corporate cronyism supported by statists of both parties continues. Iceland proves that the people can force dramatic changes in their government despite big government and centralized control. They told the EU and UN no. The results are a better Iceland. We the People have created a loose grass roots group that the GOP wants to control, the TEA Party, it is clearly libertarian in nature, and the people it elected are willing to cut government. Expect the statists in the GOP and Democrat to belittle, and try to negate the effect of the TEA Party, but reality is that in a few short years the TEA Party won major battles.

Results of the TEA Party are, Law that automatically makes real cuts in spending and making the Tax Cuts permanent done with a Democrat in the White House, Democrat Control of the Senate, and only about 100 members of the House. The TEA Party is dead? Hardly, it's winning and the statists don't even know they lost.

The betrayal of the TEA Party by the Republicans is causing many to look for an alternative. The LP is the natural home for the TEA Party except for our AAA image. That image of atheistic amoral anarchists must be changed. The LP must quit with our demand of ideologic purity and have a much more open tent. Crap like our constantly beating each other up over whose more libertarian has got to end. Massive wedge issues in the national party platform that drive out over ½ the country need to be removed. See the LPF Platform(http://www.lpf.org/platform) for a great example of what America can and will support. The reason we don't have more than 2% of the vote is our image not our values.

The TEA Party is actually winning, let the LameStream press and statists of the major parties delude themselves into thinking it's gone, or they can beat it. But We The People, have the power. We must keep the pressure on our representatives and other elected officials; it's working and we're winning. We don't need accolades, we need results, I don't care who claims the win for making the tax cuts permanent; the statists in Washington and the people know, it was a clear major victory for the TEA Party. We in the LPF need to embrace the TEA Party, accept its members, and offer a viable alternative the statist parties. We need to support the most libertarian candidates that can win. If we want to see liberty in our life time we must break the LP mold. The TEA party has shown it can be done.

Obamacare, Inspired by Loki

By Tom Rhodes, 6/14/2012



Free and open markets over time always produce the lowest prices for the best goods. From Computers to TVs; from Cars to Car Insurance, competition drives prices down and quality up. The undeniable truth is that he who pays determines what is purchased. Once individuals are no longer responsible and don’t pay for something, they lose the choice in that purchase; the choice of quantity, quality, style, etc. are all determined by the payer. A child may ask for, beg, cry, and demand a certain toy, or pair of shoes but it is ultimately the parent who makes the choice determines the purchase. This applies to our health care too.

Prove it to yourself, look at the cost of auto insurance in New Hampshire, and the wide variety of auto insurance available there. It is cheaper, and you have far more choices in the type and levels of insurance you can purchase than almost any other state in the country. Why??? Because it is not required, you do not have to have auto insurance in New Hampshire, to own and operate a car on the highways and byways of New Hampshire. Auto insurance in New Hampshire has true competition; it is a product that the people are free to purchase or not from a variety of sources. This is a model that can and does work for all insurance sales. Same goes for Homeowners insurance, and any other product and service. When a product or service is required by government regulation it always costs more for inferior quality.

Our current policy of having third parties pay for insurance and health care has caused out of control growth and decrease in choices for health care consumers. The big companies who form “groups” pay for and determine coverage, not the health care consumer. Most people are left with either what their employer offers or nothing. Corporatism, is not free enterprise and open markets. Our current system of employer paying had reduced not expanded health care choices, and once reduced to government not employer paying (single payer) it will get worse, because the person who pays determines the quality, quantity, and value of any product or service.

When you look at car insurance, you see lots and lots of choices, lots of companies selling a huge variety of services. This is because they have to deal with and take care of each individual, not a single HR rep who determines the service for thousands of employees. Because individuals can and do shop around and compare prices, service, quality, and then determine the level of service they can afford or are willing to pay for, they get the best product for the least. Once we accept the idea that government pays for health care, individual choice in what’s covered is gone. If you’re a single male why should you have to pay for coverage of pregnancy, etc. If you want your insurance to be real insurance and only cover true catastrophic health care events, and pay for your own check-ups, and routine care with a high $3000 deductable that should be your choice. But when you don’t pay for your insurance directly, that choice is determined by the guy who pays.

If we really wanted to address health care costs we’d do two things. 1) End third party paying of insurance and/or health care. This means that company’s don’t purchase your insurance, you purchase your insurance. Companies could then increase your pay by what they pay in insurance, and you could shop and compare and buy the insurance that you want not what your employer wants. 2) End the AMA and government monopoly on licensing health care providers. This licensing artificially keeps the supply of healthcare services low thus results in artificially high prices.

We know this model works in health care, Laser eye surgery to eliminate the need of glasses, has advanced dramatically and the cost has plummeted. This is because it is not covered by most insurance and is sold directly to individuals by the service provider who must compete with others in quality, comfort, and price. The results is clear, more people have more access to this health care service for lower cost and have a better service. The same can be said of plastic surgery etc. This should be the model for all health care not just “elective” health care.

Our current system big corporations and/or government decide what we get. As it has everywhere else in the world that it has been implemented, this will result in rationing, corruption, higher costs for poorer services. Once the government pays for health care, bureaucrats will decide who get’s paid how much, which will result in the smartest and brightest exiting the business and put their drive and talent to something that they not the government controls. Once the government pays for health care, bureaucrats will decide how long we wait for specific procedures, or even if some live saving procedures are available at all, or to whom. We will find that if your over a certain age, the decision isn’t between you, your family, and your doctor over exactly what efforts, and how much if any efforts are made to keep you alive, it will be the decision of unelected bureaucrats, who will weigh the value of your life to the cost of maintaining it. After a certain age you will be allowed die. It may be as subtle as simply “delaying” treatment or as overt as saying after age 65 the government’s health care your are not eligible for kidney dialysis.

We haven’t had a free market for medical services for a long time, we have a system with limited competition because of FDA and other government regulations. This non-free market system also has artificially stimulated demand because of tax laws that promote third party paying of both health care and health insurance.

Even with our limited free market for medical services, when completion is allowed pricing goes down. Look at the health insurance for schools in Wisconsin, where once school systems were allowed to shop for insurance instead of purchasing from a “sole provider” they were able to eliminate huge deficits and save millions. When allowed, free markets produce better service, lower costs, and more innovation than government controlled industries. This simple fact is not something those on the left, so-called progressives, hate to recognize, and they attack using emotional straw man arguments, because the facts support free markets not government control.

The entire theory behind the Obamacare mandate, and the entire Obamacare law is that “We The People” cannot take care of ourselves, and that they leftists as superior beings know better than the masses, and that “We the People” should be thankful for their benevolent control of our actions, and accept that they not “the People” can and should determine how we live our lives. The attitude of the left towards health care reflects their belief that “We the People” would be better off and happier if we’d just give them control. The left act and sound more like Loki in the Avengers movie and the actions are clearly against the ideas which founded this country as expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the accompanying Federalist Papers.

“It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled.” ~ Loki

This reflects the expressed beliefs of the left, specifically Obama. Like Loki, Obama and the left really don’t care about “We the People” they just want power. Obama doesn’t want individuals to achieve as much as they can, he wants to determine at what point “you’ve made enough money.” Obama hates self reliant individuals, but isn’t surprised that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”, but wants all the people to just accept what he and others on the left have decided is in our best interest. He would treat those who stand up to him the way Loki treated the elder who stood against him in the Avengers. Obama actually believes that “We the People” want the government to take care of us and rule us. He doesn’t believe “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.”

He believes that he, the ruling elite, can and should determine what makes each individual happy, that he and the ruling elite, can and should determine what services and products you must purchase or are allowed to purchase. That he and the ruling elite, can and should determine what we eat, what we drive, where we live, how we use our private property, and even if we should be allowed to accumulate property. Obamacare is a reflection of Loki (Obama) not a reflection of the will of “We the People.” I’ll bet when Obama looks in the mirror he sees this:

Why Is Statist Lust For Power Righteous But Business Greed For Money Evil?

By Tom Rhodes 5/24/2012

Democrats, Socialists, Progressives, Leftists, basically Statists of all types are irrational beings. The Obama mantra and strategy of capitalist big business being evil and government being good doesn’t pass any rational application of logic or thinking. No rational person can deny that the evils of the 20th Century, arguably the bloodiest in history, were caused by big governments and not businesses. Around 30 million citizens of the USSR died in the Gulag Archipelago. Considering that there were no private businesses in the USSR nobody can argue that businesses were the cause of that evil. The 75million Chinese people deliberately starved to death were not starved by the actions of Archer Daniels Midland but by the Chinese government. What business killed five million Ukrainians? Why business murdered 25% of the entire Cambodian population? It wasn’t Fokker, Mercedes Benz, or other German company that instituted the Holocaust, it was the Nazi State.

Conoco Phillips, British Petroleum, Marathon, Shell, Exxon, have small security forces but they have no ability to arrest you, they can’t tax you, they can’t confiscate your bank account, they can’t jail you, they can’t send a drone to kill you. Corporations don’t have police powers. Nobody from Coca-Cola is going to arrest you, take you from your home, interrogate you, and hold you. Today it is the government not any company has declared that they have the right to detain you without trial for as long as they want by merely claiming that you support terrorism with no evidence.

You are free to grow your own food, purchase it at Wall-Mart, Kroger, Fred’s, Winn-Dixie, or the corner produce stand. No business is using force or threat of force to make you purchase their product or service. It is only the government that uses force and the threat of force to compel you purchasing their service whether you want it, use it, or need it.

Yes it can be argued that government does good, and no anarchy is not better than government. But like parts of government the vast majority of businesses, private citizens, churches, and other voluntary associations do good. There is no private enterprise of any type that has done the vast amount of monstrous evil that governments have. Our forefathers understood that power corrupts so instituted a form of government that was limited, putting in harsh restrictions on the government not the people. From Matchless to the Hudson car company to Pan-Am to a zillion forgotten dot com’s those businesses that failed to protect and provide for their customers no longer exist. Businesses only prosper and do well by providing for the needs of their customers (unless government interferes with subsidies, mandates, licensing schemes, etc. to protected some businesses over others or protect businesses from bad business decisions).



Yes business is greedy for money; that is after all why they exist, to generate profit for the owner(s). As the above video by Walter Williams notes, it is in the best interests of business to protect and help its customers because they must compete for their business. Government has no such interest, and its driving force is its own propagation. It’s ability to use force to further its goals makes government far more dangerous. Tthe greed for power is far more frightening and dangerous to the people than mere greed for money. Statists throughout the last century were not greedy for money; they knew that with power the need for money was irrelevant. Consider Obama, his actual wage as president is not relevant, few if any have more of their needs provided with no personal costs than he and his family. He is set for life. None of the 20th Centuries infamous mass murderers, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao showed preoccupation with monetary greed. Their lust for power was legendary. This is why statists, whether they call themselves, progressives, leftists, socialists, democrats or republicans are far scarier than the libertarian or even conservative aspects of the political spectrum. Statists of all stripes lust for power.

How can one rationally look at the horrors inflicted upon people by their own governments over the last century and claim that businesses and capitalism are the cause of peoples ills, especially when they then ask the people to give the government more power, and control more of everybody’s lives. Only the insane could accept this reasoning.

Economist Dr. Walter Williams notes that greed not government was a driving force in eliminating racial discrimination.

Think about greed and racial discrimination. In 1947, when the Brooklyn Dodgers hired Jackie Robinson, why did racial discrimination by major league teams begin to drop like a hot potato? It wasn't feelings of guilt by white owners, affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws. It turned out that there was a huge pool of black baseball talent in the Negro leagues. It became too costly for teams to allow the Dodgers to gain a monopoly on this talent. Black players won the National League's Most Valuable Player award for seven consecutive seasons. Had other teams not stepped in to hire black players, allowing the Dodgers to hire them, it might have given the Dodgers a virtual monopoly on world championships.

Dr. Williams is right “greed is good.”

Statists Use PC to Undermine Liberty

Statists use PC to Undermine Liberty
By Tom Rhodes, 5/22/2012

What is Political correctness (PC)? According to Professor Jonathan I. Katz; "Political correctness is the narrowing of the range of acceptable opinions to those held by a small group that enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing group by suppressing any contrary opinion and making independent thought unacceptable. The enforcing group may be afraid of the consequences of open discussion, or of making the facts known. It generally has a practical motivation: it wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement from it outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. This is unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the only means of getting the claim accepted when it is weak."

The late Charlton Heston put it more succinctly: "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Over 20 years ago, before being totally overtaken with Political Correctness (PC), Newsweek recognized the fact that PC is totalitarian saying in its Dec. 24, 1990 edition, "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy." 20 years later Newsweek is now an ironic parody of George Orwell's "Newspeak" as coined in his famous work, "1984." The walls of Oceania's "Ministry of Truth", headquarters for propaganda and revisionist history, are festooned with three "Newspeak" phrases: War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength. Today's PC press work on similar "Newspeak": Charity Is Entitlement, Envy Is Righteousness. Sin Is Love.

Let's talk about basic culture. Today's PC police want us to accept abject falsehoods as fact. The claim that all cultures are equal and that we must embrace diversity simply flies in the face of reality. Western culture based on representative government and liberty has provided most of the worlds progress, food, medicine, technology and the highest quality of life for more people; why is a culture that is ignorant openly oppressive, misogynistic, a culture where punishment for paltry offenses is the amputation of limbs and death is mandated for differing opinions on historic leaders, worthy of equal respect, value, or even tolerated by Western culture?

Political correctness works by squelching any opinion or idea that doesn't meet the goals of the enforcers of PC beliefs. As an example let's use the absurd policy that disregards common sense, consistently depresses wages and hurts our culture; unlimited immigration. Open discussion and debate would not help the promotion of unlimited open borders. Because parts of honest and open discussions may offend minority immigrants, and political correctness mandates nobody other than white males, should be offended, then open and honest discussions shouldn't happen. Those who would still openly and honestly discuss the effects of our unsecured borders are then treated with derogatory and vile labels, such as racist. Once this label is applied, statists use peer pressure both publicly and professionally on those opposed to unlimited open borders threatening promotions and jobs of those who refuse to toe the line. It's not PC to call people who break the law and criminally enter the US, illegal aliens.

Imagine you purchase a set of tools from your neighbor at a garage sale, and the next week the police come and inform you that what you purchased was stolen. Because you did nothing illegal are you entitled to keep the tools? Of course not, they are the property of their rightful owner and your only redress is to attempt to get your money back. This same concept applies to illegal immigrants. The big worry is for children who were brought here by their criminal parents. Just because those children committed no crime does not grant them the right to enjoy the benefits of their parents illegal activity. They do not have the right to remain in the US just because they didn't choose to come here, anymore than possessing stolen property gives somebody the right to keep it.

To rationalize something is to devise self-satisfying but false or inconsistent reasons for one's behavior, especially as an unconscious defense mechanism through which irrational acts or feelings are made to appear rational. The PC police have gone so far as to redefine what justice means to rationalize immoral behavior and policy. Terminologies such as "social justice" or "economic justice" are euphemisms for appropriation by both threat and use of force, of what justly belongs to another. "Social justice" and "economic justice" are misnomers to obfuscate injustice. In order to validate unequal treatment under the law, and rationalize the acceptance of selective racism the PC police have used and defend the term, "affirmative action." By using this term the PC police say that if a person has the right skin color they may be "entitled" to a job over a more qualified applicant. This is the definition of the injustice called racial discrimination. Political correctness rationalizes acts of racism as "social justice."

The statist's success of PC has changed the way we are allowed to discuss and treat charity. Charity is generally defined as generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless, or as something freely given to a person or persons in need. In the past the poor and disadvantaged were the grateful recipients of charity. Now because of PC rather than being thankful of the generosity by individuals, churches and other groups, organizations, today the poor and disadvantaged feel "entitled" to the labor and property of others. The very idea that charity, be it in the form of a government "safety-net" or private-sector origin is something which those who receive it "entitled" is a bizarre presupposition and totally dissonant thought to rationale-thinking persons. The result of "entitlements" rather than charity is that the recipients are now ungrateful. Why should somebody be grateful for receiving what they are entitled? This perversion of "charity" to "entitlement" has been used to justify forcing people to fund charity through taxation. What is lost is the honor, culture, respect, and belief that is associated with earning something, Of course earning is a concept lost on most cultures and languages, many don't even have a unique word to address the concept of earning and equate earning with winning, but then, pointing that out is not PC. We have also suppressed the moral obligation to take responsibility and be charitable to those in need. Why donate to charity when you already have through onerous taxes. "Entitlements" are the tool of Scrooge not a responsible and generous society. It was Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol," who said that his taxes supported institutions for the poor so he could ignore them.

The most PC of terms is "tolerance." Statists now expect and demand that everybody reject the moral norms of civilized societies for thousands of years and not only show "tolerance" but celebrate sexual immorality and deviancy. Minimally everybody is expected to remain silent and not utter a word of disapproval of what is a immoral, decadent, and demonstrably self-destructive behavior. The irony is seen in the total "intolerance" of homosexual activists who condemn, ridicule, and attacks all those who holds traditional views of what is moral and just.

The entire idea of political correctness PC is a battering on the freedom of the thought. PC operates on raw intimidation. In our PC culture, if the wrong people use the wrong word they are deemed ignorant, insensitive, intolerant, bigoted or hateful. The logical extension is that those who even think in a non-PC way are the same. The scorning, mocking, and visceral attacks by the PC are made to intimidate people from saying or standing up for what they really believe. The very core of PC is the unjust, immoral intimidation to make people think and speak in a certain way. It is statist mind control.

We are now in dangerous and foolish territory. Trying to placate the emotions of others by restricting speech and tolerating unjust and unequal treatment of everybody so that nobody is offended and their self-esteem is preserved is a prescription for losing our most basic rights. The vast majority of people lack the intellectual aptitude or emotional development to hear much less rationally discuss differing political opinions without taking personal umbrage. If we accept political correctness... accept communions only so long as nobody is offended... accept as legitimate peoples "comfort" with words, ideas, and beliefs as more important than open expression and debate... then we stifle, restrict, limit, and denigrate legitimate free speech.

Political correctness is sinister nature. PC goes beyond stifling legitimate opinions in the interest of indulging certain groups. PC furthers one opinion and belief at the expense of all other ideas. PC is a weapon to achieve both political and intellectual orthodoxy by silencing opposition. The head of what is arguably our countries most prestigious school, Harvard, was forced to resign for merely stating a PC heresy that there may be a scientific and natural basis for the variation in male/female IQ distribution. The PC police were successful in both removing Larry Summers, and silencing any who would dare express an idea contrary to accepted feminist dogma that all unequal outcomes between men and women are the result of discrimination by the white male hetero-patriarchy.

Truth, facts, and rational thinking are not allowed in the PC world, but propaganda if supporting the current PC police is allowed. In "documenting" Global Warming, Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth" is propaganda, not science. This is not just a biased claim but a legal ruling. A judge in the British High Court, accredited that there were at least NINE areas in his movie where the truth wasn't being told. At the time the politically correct British government was forcing the exposure of this propaganda to school children, and treating it as fact. The High Court classified "An Inconvenient Truth" as propaganda not fact, and ruled that it could only be shown in schools if the teacher pointed out all NINE of the falsehoods presented in Al Gore's movie. Those who would point out the NINE falsehoods in Al Gore's movie, are labeled "deniers" and vilified even though the facts and even legal findings make it clear that the movie its conclusion and recommendations are based on lies.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." PC promotes injustice and unequal treatment under the law. So called "hate" crimes are a prime example, which promotes some people and ideas are more worthy than others. This is prototypical Marxist ideology, PC guardians must protect the "oppressed;" racial minorities, homosexuals, women (when convenient), and non-Christians. The idea is that Christians and white men have been "privileged" for such an extended period of time that they no longer deserve equal protection under the law. This is a twisted concept of justice which grants special preference to some people based on race, gender, or geographic origins. Historically justice has been administered based on actual crimes committed, not the perceived or actual reason the crime was committed. What difference does it make the reason a mugger chose to beat and rob somebody, that victim is still assaulted and deprived of property through force. Whether convenience, boredom, sport, or hatred, criminals should be tried, judged, and punished based on their actions not thoughts. Since we as people cannot know the thoughts and desires of others, we can the only legitimately punish criminal acts not motives. It should not matter who the victim is, white, red, yellow, brown, or black; unknown or celebrity; homosexual or heterosexual; rich or poor; all people should be judged the same. This is both the traditional and biblical standard and the only morally acceptable rationale for justice. "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:14-16). Any other standard amounts to criminalizing mere thoughts.

Without being allowed to speak plainly, we deny the ability to think clearly. What rationale can be used to deny the freedom of expression? Under the social dementia that is political correctness there is no place to refute, only the empty jingoism of people motivated by selfishness unrestrained by any sense of moral turpitude. The purveyors of PC nonsense don't comprehend or realize the repercussions of what they say, nor comprehend why espouse PC sayings. The social decline we are seeing is augmented by political correctness, as our society degenerates PC is used to rationalize the less restrained and less rational behavior of the public.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. Nobody has the right not to feel uncomfortable. Nobody has the right to have their "self-esteem" treated as a right. Nobody has the right to suppress opinion, thoughts, and ideas they don't like. Political correctness elevates feelings above the law and provides a path to accept injustice, immorality, sloth, envy, greed as righteous principles. This is the most effective tool that statists have developed to undermine liberty, and attack the foundational idea that power and authority come from the consent of the people, not from some ruling elite.

Socialism is the embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins

by Tom Rhodes, 5/19/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libertarian Leader Prophesies Zombie Apocalypse Nov. 6, 2012

By Tom Rhodes 4/27/2012



Libertarian party of Florida (LPF) Chair Adrian Wyllie in a recent 1787Network.com commentary said the following:

“I did some research and found there are a ton of apocalyptic prophesies, they all result in a really bad hair day for all life on Earth and seem to align perfectly with the Mayan calendar and 2012.

I love a good conspiracy, there’s no government capable of keeping quiet about something that could potentially eradicate mankind.

Nothing is impossible. But I can say, based on the “science”, you should be worried a zombie apocalypse in 2012.”

In a private conversation that this reporter had with the LPF Chairman, it was clear that he was serious about his prophesy, and offered an exact date for the Zombie Apocalypse of November 6, 2012.

---

Now the truth of the matter is the above quote is an edited down version of the article. The same methods used by NBC to edit George Zimmermans 911 tape were used. I cut out phrases and words to shorten the article into a sound-bite. Like the Zimmerman’s 911 tape the editing may change the meaning, and you might be able to come to different conclusion than if you had the entire thing. But in this case it does make for some funny reading. Seriously if you define the terms Adrian’s prophesy is accurate. The Zombie Apocalypse should be taken at least as seriously as the US government takes it. The CDC has even published a guide on how to prep for the coming Zombie Apocalypse.



Because of the seriousness of the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse, they government has produced Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic. This was published on May 18, 2011, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It provides tips on how to survive a zombie invasion. Although the CDC does not claim an outbreak is likely or imminent, it states: "That’s right, I said z-o-m-b-i-e a-p-o-c-a-l-y-p-s-e. You may laugh now, but when it happens you’ll be happy you read this...." The CDC goes on to underscore the value of laying in water, food, medical supplies, and other necessities in preparation for any and all potential disasters, be they hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, or hordes of zombies. On October 17, 2011, The Weather Channel published an article, "How To Weather the Zombie Apocalypse." Obviously we should take the Zombie Apocalypse seriously.

Now to better understand LPF Char Adrian Wyllie’s prediction of a November 6, 2012 Zombie Apocalypse, let’s get our definitions strait.

Zombie - is unproductive uncivilized brainless group who hunger for the flesh (property) of productive civilized individuals, zombies expect to keep making the same choices (gorging on society’s output regardless of their individual input) but get different results (increased wealth and economic output); these can be best be termed Democrat and Republican voters.

Apocalypse - is any universal or widespread destruction or disaster, in this case of the pending November 6, 2012 Zombie Apocalypse it refers to the election or reelection of a statist to head the formerly free republic of the United States of America.

The reason for the apocalyptic prophesy is simple; the only choices we are being offered by the two major parties are the same. Whether you pick Obama or Romney, you are stuck with a elitist statist educated in an exclusive New England college designed for blue bloods who believes that it is the right and duty of the government to dictate how people should live for their own good, and that government authority should be increased at the expense of individual liberty because they as the ruling elite know what’s best for everybody.

Because the LPF Chair is right, (as ususal), you should be prepared. The CDC Agrees.

Why is it the Government's Business

By Tom Rhodes, 4/17/2012

Why does the government have any say it what is clearly not their business? Consider the whole Rosen debacle where one of Obama's strategist claims that housewives, stay at home mom's, have shouldn't have the right to talk about the economy, and haven't worked a day in their lives. The fact is Obama and his administration, and those whom he consults should have no say in how anybody, including women, chooses to pursue happiness.

Why does the opinion of an unmarried woman who's never raised kids on a single parent income have a more valid opinion on the economy? The idea that an Obama advisor (now thrown under the bus) even thinks that she or the government has any right to insult a political opponent's wife by ridiculing that woman's life choices, is nothing but overbearing conceit and indicates an hatred for traditional family values. She is free to have and express this opinion, but as an political activist often consulted by Obama's administration, it reflects on the President. This was embarrassing for the President, the Democrats, and blew up in their faces. They never even thought to consider that the government shouldn't have a position how individuals choose to live their lives.

"Raising children is a lot of work, and we'd venture to say it's more valuable work than, say, lobbying for the music industry or helping BP with its crisis communications, to name two of the highlights of Rosen's career." ~ JAMES TARANTO, WSJ 4/12/2012

Can you name any work more valuable than raising children. Is closing a business deal more valuable? If so Why? Marriages where women choose to sacrifice a second income to stay at home, raise kids, run a household, are more stable, and have proven repeatedly to be the best method to raise children to be successful productive citizens. Yes there are exceptions, but those are exceptions not the rule. There is nothing more important to society than raising children, period. If it weren't so important why does our government have the following organizations laws and programs: Administration on Children, Youth and Families; Child Care Block Grant; Child Nutrition Act; Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Head Start Act; Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act; Maternal and Child Health Bureau ; Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant; National School Lunch Act; Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education; Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); States Children's Health Insurance Program; Supplemental Security Income for Disabled Children; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; and many more? The fact is our laws, regulations, bureaus, all show that as a society we value raising children, yet this administration is attacking the proven best condition for children to be raised, a stay at home mom. Why?

Why did the Obama administration manufacture another crisis? What business does the government have in even voicing an opinion on how some women choose to live their lives? The government has far more important business than its current war on traditional society. It appears that the government doesn't want people to be able to pursue happiness if they don't choose to pursue what the government wants. Look at the attacks on Homeschooling, attacks on school choice, attacks on married stay at home moms, attacks on gun owners, attacks on the states, attacks on private property. It appears as though the government actually thinks that it's their business to worry about how hard a woman works or doesn't. Shouldn't people be allowed to make life choices and sacrifices and be allowed to enjoy the perks of those choices?

The government seems to want power, over every choice every person makes, because they think they know what's best for each individual. Look at retirement; Assume you and another earn the same basic wages, if you choose to live frugally and save for retirement, rather than take vacations, buy a huge house, have a new car every couple years, or otherwise spend all your earnings, the government now wants you to be required to use your savings to support those in old age who chose not to live frugally and save. This is exactly what Means based Social Security means.

Statists not only want to control the choices we have in how we live our lives, they want to control what we see, hear and say. There has been a rash of new proposed laws to make it illegal to "offend" somebody online. Remember Hillary Clinton's quote on us having "too much free speech" or Former president Clinton saying the people have too much information (he's been reported as recently saying he would prefer that we went back to the big 3 for all our news). Secretary of State Clinton also called for "gatekeepers" to the news. Obama's Cyber security, and other requested or proposed internet regulations are evidence that the Statists want control, not liberty. Obama has consistently tried to use administrative regulations to impose new laws, especially when the laws he wants are not passed by the people's representatives in Congress.

What business is it of the federal government to know what people say online? What business is it of the federal government to know where people are (Why do we allow our federal government to track our movements through our cell phones without warrants)? What business is it of the federal government to know how much any individual chooses to save for retirement? What business is it of the governments to know how many or what kind of personal arms an individual owns? What business is it of the federal government to even know if you're married? There is truth in the old cliché "Knowledge is Power." It appears as though our government wants more power over all individuals; hence they want more knowledge of every aspect of our lives.

Obama's goals are statist in nature; they have nothing to do with protecting individuals. He has contempt for the constitutional limits on government. I cannot identify any Obama policy enacted or proposed that enhances any individual's liberty or any that don't increase government control over individual lives. He attacks countries that are no threat to the USA, he attacks individual liberty, he holds in contempt the traditional values of most of America (can you say "Bitter Clinger"), he ignores the rule of law, he promotes and makes exemptions to the law for his political favorites. He is loyal to nobody or anything except increasing government power. Ask Rosen how loyal Obama is to his supporters. Obama and his administration believe that the they know best how every person should live their lives, hence their actions indicate that their clear goals are to increase government power at the expense of your individual liberty, the very definition of a statist.

Obama clearly is not conservative, liberal, or libertarian. He believes in statism: the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

Hubris thy name is Obama

By Tom Rhodes 4/10/12
Obama care was passed by the slimmest of margins, with unprecedented increase in government power. After the SCOTUS oral arguments on Obamacare, President Obama shot across the bow of the Justices:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

The vote was 219-214 in the House, and 60-39 in the Senate. Not what you can truthfully call a strong majority, especially when you consider that the senate would have been filibustered if it weren’t for the fact that 4 of the democrat senators that voted for Obamacare were not democratically elected but were in fact appointed replacements to the senate for Obama and other senators who are joined his cabinet. Former Democrat, Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich is going to prison for corruption related to selling off Obama’s Senate seat. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that saying that Obamacare passed with “a strong majority of a democratically elected” senate is stretching the truth quite a bit. To even imply otherwise is an overt act of hubris.

Obama saying that it is “Judicial Activism” to overturn Obamacare on constitutional grounds, that it is thwarting the will of the people through their democratically elected Congress has to be disingenuous. As Ken Blackwell points out, another modern era law that survived judicial review, was passed by the Democrat controlled house 342-67 and Democrat controlled Senate 85-14, and signed into law by a Democrat President in 1984, Obama calls “Unconstitutional.” This law when put up to referendum, even in liberal California, passes with a huge majority. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act is the will of the people. But somehow DOMA is “unconstitutional” while Obamacare is; polls show 2/3rds of the people want Obamacare repealed; a majority of States are suing the US Government over its implementation; and it grants unprecedented power with a requirement that all people take some affirmative action and purchase a commercial product just for being alive, and Obama scolds the Supreme Court of the United States over its constitutionality and Obamacare being the will of the people. Hubris, thy name is Obama.

Obama as a professor of constitutional law, clearly knows what is and isn’t constitutional, he quite simply doesn’t want or believe that the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Obama appears to be actively working to create administrative tyranny to bypass the separation of powers and constitutional limits on the federal government. As he infamously said he has problems with the constitution, doesn’t like the limits, doesn’t like the fact that it doesn’t “obligate” the government to “do” certain things, and limits what he as president can “get done.” Hubris, thy name is Obama.

Obama’s hubris, and willingness to bypass the rule of law is self evident. Consider his almost routine use of the military in defiance of the War Powers Act, or his extortion of BP over the gulf oil spill with no legal authority. There is no question that BP should have been held accountable for the damages they caused in and around the Gulf of Mexico; we have laws for that sort of thing. What legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business to make restitution? We have bankruptcy laws, by what legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business and individuals to accept 30 cents on the dollar for secured credit which legally have precedence in bankruptcy, while giving unsecured creditors like the UAW far more generous terms? Hubris thy name is Obama.

Obama and statists, who think like him, have the hubris to think that they know what is best for every person, and that they should have the power and authority to dictate how people should live. From what we eat, to what we are allowed to hear or watch on TV and Radio, to what medical services you are allowed to use, they want to regulate every aspect of every person’s life. Ignoring the repeated failures of socialism, from the first Pilgrims to the US to fall of the USSR, Obama and statists continue ignore the historical evidence that the rule of law and the protection of private property rights lead to the highest standard of living and most freedom and liberty for more people than any other economic system in the history of man. Obama exercise extreme hubris, thinking that he and his ilk know better and can centrally control an economy, can centrally control what technologies are developed and succeed, can centrally control what people learn, all through the redistribution of labor. Obama thinks that he can decide, and should have the power to dictate at exactly what point you have enough. Obama is typical of statists, regardless of what philosophy or rhetoric they use to describe their agenda, no matter where in the world they attempt to implement their agenda, their agenda is always the same, preempting the decisions of individuals and regimenting their lives. Hubris thy name is Obama.

Blaming Capitalism for the Effects of Cronyism

By Tom Rhodes 2/22/2012

Capitalism is under constant attack from those on the left, who have adopted socialistic views. Capitalism is the economic system that saw the greatest increase in the quality of life for the most people in the worlds history, yet profit is now seen as evil, and success is seen as oppression, and protecting the politically connected is seen as capitalism.

From Dictionary.com cap*i*tal*ism noun - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Basically capitalism is acceptance of the right to private property. The owners of private property, capital, get to judge how best to use it, and can draw on the foresight and creative ideas of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers. If you succeed then you profit, if you fail you not only don't profit, but suffer losses. Under capitalism, businesses exist only as long as free individuals willingly purchased their goods - and go out of business quickly otherwise. This system of individual liberty and responsibility allows little capacity for government to influence economic decision-making. Because true capitalism does not allow the government to pick winners and losers, nor direct what type of car, or other widget that the government thinks people should buy, and doesn't allow ruling elite to determine what the masses have access to purchase, is exactly why statists, progressives, liberals, socialists, etc., don't like it and only pay lip service to capitalism.

In the 1800's capitalism proved it was superior to every other previously attempted socio-economic system the world had ever seen. Capitalism developed capabilities for endemic innovation and individual happiness. Societies that adopted capitalism saw unrivaled prosperity, widespread job satisfaction, achieved productivity growth that the world had never seen. Capitalism was and is the socio-economic system that ended mass privation for those societies that adopted it. Those that didn't, and still don't, still suffer mass privation.

What we have in the USA today is not capitalism; it's some corrupt blend of fascism, socialism, despotism, with a smattering of permission to profit for the well connected. Statists have assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This statist control is not capitalism!! Rather it is a socio-economic order that more resembles Bismarck in the late nineteenth century or Mussolini in the twentieth. Call it what it is Cronyism, or to be more polite corporatism, but it is not free enterprise.

Cronyism chokes off the dynamic drive and vitality that make for engaging work, quick economic growth, and more opportunity and inclusiveness. Cronyism maintains sluggish, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic beginners and outsiders. It favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals' economic freedom and responsibility. Think of all the industries that are "to big to fail" like; airlines, auto manufacturers, agricultural companies, media, investment banks, hedge funds, and even schools. Statists have at some point been deemed these enterprises too important to endure the forces of capitalism, receiving a helping hand from government in the name of the "public good."

The costs of cronyism are visible all around us: dysfunctional corporations like GM that survive even though their gross inability to serve their customers. Explain why they developed a $40,000 electric car that nobody wants to buy even with nearly $10,000 in government incentives to buyers. We have twisted, deformed, and failing economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, few opportunities for the young people; entire governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and ever increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those cronies on the right side of the corporatist deal.

In the past, automobile companies like Hudson, Tucker, Stutz, Studebaker, Oldsmobile, Rambler, Nash, Pierce, Stanley, Detroit Electric Car Company, American Motors Corp.(there are many more but you get the picture), all were allowed to fail because people voluntarily choose not to purchase their cars, because the quality, price, style, and performance failed to meet what their competitors produced. As both technology and buyers tastes changed those car companies that didn't change failed. GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail. Although Willys-Overland, Kaiser, and AMC, are all gone, the venerable Jeep is still being produced, today by Chrysler. If Chrysler had gone under, some other company would have purchased the Jeep assets and continued its production. Those products that GM produces which have a market would still be produced, but by somebody else. How did becoming too big to be profitable get to mean too big to fail? Cronyism, they have the connections in the WallStreet-Washington Cabal to use the full force of government to protect them from the forces of competition, bad management, and changing demands.

This is a huge shift in power from owners and innovators to government officials are the exact opposite of capitalism. Yet cronies and statists have the impudence to blame failures on "reckless capitalism" and "lack of regulation." When in reality, it is over regulation and government interference in the free market that is the cause. Statists then argue for even more oversight and regulation, which in reality means more cronyism. This can be most easily seen in "waivers" to regulations to the politically connected; think Obamacare wavers for unions and favored businesses. Cronyism is synonymous with unequal treatment under the law, and royal favoritism.

The crony/corporatist model is unsustainable, unfair, unequal, and makes no sense whatsoever, especially to younger generations who grew up using the Internet. The Internet is by far the world's freest market for goods and ideas. When was the last time you used MySpace or Friendster? When was the last time you used FaceBook? Social networking Web sites are a prime example of success and failure of free markets. They rise and fall more or less instantaneously, based on their ability to serve their customers.

MySpace and Friendster are almost gone because they chose fast quick extra profit by selling the privacy of their users; Their users almost instantly bitch-slapped them, deserting them faster than you can double-click on share button for Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. The Government didn't have to do anything, we needed no regulation; voluntarily people took their business elsewhere. If the statists were in charge, they would be limiting entry into social media by startups with excessive regulations, bailing out MySpace with taxpayer dollars, and using MySpace's failed morals as rationale to add more regulations on MySpace's customers, all while promoting big bonus checks for the new lawyer-in-charge at MySpace; it's founder having long since been pushed aside.

Statists want control of the Internet, as a largely free marketplace for ideas. The internet has not treated corporatism kindly. We now have a generation or more of people who grew up with its decentralization and free competition of ideas and products, who must find alien the very idea of state support for large firms and industries. Many in the traditional media repeat the old line "What's good for GM is good for America," but it that entire idea is not likely to be received well or get traction on Twitter. One size determined by government does not fit all.

Crony-corporatism is not capitalism. The core to capitalism, free enterprise, and happiness, is individual property rights. Without those and equal protection of those rights, all other rights are non-existent. Any so-called right which violates individual property rights are not rights, but excuses to grant some ruling elite control at the expense of the individual. Capitalism as a socio-economic system has proven to provide the best overall quality of life for more people than any other system in history. Yes some will suffer under true capitalism, but overall more people will be happier and have a higher stand of living than if we allow some ruling elite, who don't trust people with the right, nor want to allow them the right to decide what is best for themselves, and benefit or suffer based on their life decisions.

The actual and perceived authority of cronyism is eroding; the legitimacy of crony states and corporatism is coming under question; just look at the fiscal health of governments that have relied on it. Since Greek politicians couldn't repeal cronyism, it is being repealed for them. They don't even get to elect their own chief executive anymore. Here in the USA if politicians don't repeal our current crony-corporate statist policies, the entire crony state it will bury itself in debt, then default and fail. With any luck, a capitalist system will re-emerge from the ashes of the crony-corporatist ruins. Then enterprise will again be free and "capitalism" might work again by its true meaning, rather than the radical misnomer now attributed to it by statists seeking to hide behind it and socialists wanting to disparage it.

Tax Education

By Tom Rhodes, 2/2/12

Libertarians consistently fail to educate and articulate the libertarian point of view in a way that can be understood. We also consistently fail to point out where in taxes the statists in power consistently hide simple truth from the people. We get drug down in dumb arguments and keep forgetting that the goal is liberty for all, equality for all, rule of law, etc. Today I'll make an attempt and mention some basics that the people should understand but politics and hyperbole get in the way: one is the stupidity of our double taxation system, the other is the Chutzpah of rich liberals calling for more taxes on the rich, and the last is similar in I point out the actual practices of a tax-and-spend liberal on using tax dollars for charity, compared to how he dictates the people act. I may be tilting at windmills, but in as much as liberty and freedom are clearly not the goals of either of the two major parties, we have to try.

Tax stupidity

Assume you own a business work a reasonable 50 hours a week, take care of your 5 employees, etc. and after all is said and done there was $100,000 profit in that business last year. You pay your 35% corporate income taxes and then you as owner are free to use the remaining $65K however you want. Now then, you see an opportunity to double the size of your business but need capital, so you sell some shares in your business but retain 60% ownership and full control. You use the investment dollars provided and expand and hire more people your work load is now about 60 hours a week and are successful and reach your projected doubling in size. Your expanded business now earns $200,000 dollars in profit and again pay 35% in corporate income taxes. You cannot keep the profit for just yourself anymore because you don't own all the business so based on who owns shares you distribute the now doubled $135K after tax profit to yourself and those whom purchased stock. Your share of the doubled profits is $78K, but . . . Since you are now a group of owners instead of a single owner these profits are now called dividends, and now taxed again at a rate of 15%. Thus you only actually receive $66K. The result is you doubled the size of your business increased your work load from 50 to 60 hours a week and took home an additional thousand bucks. Why increase your work load, risk, and hire more people for $1K per year? Obviously a napkin discussion with your accountant would lead any reasonable person to decide that expanding, hiring, etc. isn't worth it.

The above example the business owner add 20% more time and effort and takes home less than 2% increase in his earnings. If we did not double tax the profits from that same example, the 20% extra effort would have netted 20% extra earnings. All taxes on dividends are double taxing the profits of owners of a business. The profits a business earns are taxed, and then when the owner transfers their profit from the businesses bank account to their private bank account they are taxed again. That is double taxation, how is this fair?

The reality that statists and socialists fail to accept is that all corporate taxes are passed on to the purchaser of their product or service as part of the cost of that product or service. Just like the everyday Joe looks at his take-home pay, not his gross pay, investors and businessmen look at what's left-over after ALL costs including taxes are paid to determine whether an investment or business decision is worth the expense and effort. The reason so many younger workers opt out of benefits like health-care is that they can't spend benefits, and at the young low end of the work scale the risk of possible future health care costs compared to benefit of cash to pay for food, electricity, car payments, and the like are considered, and often the low risk of health problems associated with youth mean that the cost of health insurance are offset by the benefit of cash on hand. Those kind of risk/cost/benefit decisions are what determine future decisions for everybody. Currently we are in a no-mans-land of tax decisions, promises of more taxes on profits from business, uncertain health insurance costs, and future forced reduction in cash on hand for workers (forced insurance), when there isn't even a federal budget, has put business and workers in a holding pattern trying to protect cash and assets, growing them is secondary to protecting them. Thus we see huge interest in things like gold and silver. We need sound fiscal policy without ever-changing rules for people to make intelligent decisions about the future.

Tax Chutzpah

The hypocrisy of liberals like the Rev. Al Sharpton who attacks the Bush-era tax cuts and calls for "the rich" to pay more, belongs in the Hypocrisy Hall of Fame. Sharpton's income from his nonprofit is listed at almost $250,000. His salary at MSNBC is about the same, so "civil rights leader" Al Sharpton earns a cool half-million bucks a year to pontificate (cool gig if you can get it). The New York Post reports that he owes federal taxes and state taxes totaling $3.5 million. Wow!! Either he hasn't paid taxes for a long long long long time, or earns a lot more money than estimated or both. At his current $500K estimated earnings, if the government took all his earnings every year it would take him 14 years to pay off his IRS debt, he probably won't live that long. How much does a person have to earn to acquire a $3,500,000 tax bill? How much nerve does someone with earnings of about a half-million dollars per year, who effectively pays zero taxes have to have in order go on TV and rant for higher taxes on the rich?

Tax Charity

Statists are calling on taxing the rich more; they want the government to "take care of" everybody cradle to grave, but they don't actually practice what they preach. Consider Massachusetts, in 2001 it lowered its state income tax rate. Being the nice people they are they, put on their tax form a check box to allow the guilt ridded tax payer to volunteer and pay the old higher rate. Of the more than 3 million Massachusetts tax filers in 2004, a whopping 930 taxpayers volunteered to pay the higher rate. That number is so small it equates to just 3 pennies of $100.00; measurable but barely, and effectively zero percent. Now include in your consideration of this system that Massachusetts liberal Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, who like virtually every other liberal (or conservative, or libertarian, or independent) in his state declined the opportunity to pay the higher tax. Frank said, "I'll donate the money myself," explaining, "I don't trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions." Even uber-liberal Barney Frank agrees with the libertarian viewpoint that private Charity will better spend his money than the government, which, by its nature, operates less efficiently and more expensively than can private welfare. He agrees that he, not the government should determine what charity should receive what part of his income to do charitable work. Why should any citizen trust the government to do what's best with their money if our most powerful elected leaders don't?

On a side note Barney Frank has uttered a good number of libertarian quotes, like this 2009 quote; "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."