by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/2017
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Showing posts with label Tyranny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tyranny. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Monday, June 29, 2015
Why I’m Not a Progressive
by Tom Rhodes, 6/29/2015
Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.
We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.
In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”
Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”
The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.
It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)
The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.
The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”
Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:
If you believe that certain words are acceptable for one group of people to use but forbidden by others; you might be a progressive.
If you believe academic requirements to get into universities should be lower for people of one skin color than another; you might be a racist progressive.
If you believe physical requirements for certain jobs should be lower for one group of people than for others; you might be a sexist progressive.
If you believe some standards of behavior should be acceptable for one group of people and not for others; you might be a progressive.
I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?
Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.
We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.
In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”
Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”
The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.
It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)
The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.
The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”
Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:
I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Freedom of Speech and Bill of Rights Will Be Dead in a Generation
By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2015
Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.
To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.
Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.
The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.
June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.
Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.
To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.
Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.
The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.
June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Feds Require You to Get Permission before Blogging or Posting on the Internet.
By Tom Rhodes, 6/8/2015
Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.
This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.
Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.
This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Democrat Leaders Openly Calling for Tyrannical Despotism
By Tom Rhodes, 5/18/2015
The Democrat leadership is openly calling for rule by tyrannical despot, specifically doing away with the Bill of Rights. Directly attacking the First Amendment.
"We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues." ~ President B.H. Obama May, 2015
How exactly the president intends to square his desire to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment, is clear. He plans on ignoring the Constitution and force the press and the people to capitulate. Using Orwellian Newspeak for his lawless actions calling totalitarian dictates to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of the press, “Net Neutrality” and the “Fairness Doctrine.”
The front runner for the Democrat’s next presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton. She also is directly attacking the First Amendment:
“Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,: arguing, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” ~ Hillary Clinton, April 2015
How exactly the presidential front runner for the Democrat party intends to square her desire to change our “deep-seated religious beliefs” with the First Amendment, is clear. She is advocating laws against expressing traditional Christian beliefs, and ignore or do away with the First Amendment. The Democrat Presidential front runner is unequivocally saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views. If you’re a Christian, you are being attacked for merely repeating the plain language of the Bible. Clinton has openly stated her goal is to change Christianity, not protect your freedom of religion.
The leaders of the Democrat party are openly saying they must change how the people think by controlling the media, and change what we are allowed to believe. They believe that they should force you to change, for your own good of course.
Wake up!!! There is not one person who calls themselves progressive or liberal or Democrat willing to defend your rights, when was the last time you heard any leftist say “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
Because they cannot get their way legally and the people won’t give them absolute rule, they are now openly attacking the First Amendment. Are you willing to let that happen?
The Democrat leadership is openly calling for rule by tyrannical despot, specifically doing away with the Bill of Rights. Directly attacking the First Amendment.
"We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues." ~ President B.H. Obama May, 2015
How exactly the president intends to square his desire to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment, is clear. He plans on ignoring the Constitution and force the press and the people to capitulate. Using Orwellian Newspeak for his lawless actions calling totalitarian dictates to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of the press, “Net Neutrality” and the “Fairness Doctrine.”
The front runner for the Democrat’s next presidential candidate is Hillary Clinton. She also is directly attacking the First Amendment:
“Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,: arguing, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” ~ Hillary Clinton, April 2015
How exactly the presidential front runner for the Democrat party intends to square her desire to change our “deep-seated religious beliefs” with the First Amendment, is clear. She is advocating laws against expressing traditional Christian beliefs, and ignore or do away with the First Amendment. The Democrat Presidential front runner is unequivocally saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views. If you’re a Christian, you are being attacked for merely repeating the plain language of the Bible. Clinton has openly stated her goal is to change Christianity, not protect your freedom of religion.
The leaders of the Democrat party are openly saying they must change how the people think by controlling the media, and change what we are allowed to believe. They believe that they should force you to change, for your own good of course.
Wake up!!! There is not one person who calls themselves progressive or liberal or Democrat willing to defend your rights, when was the last time you heard any leftist say “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”
Because they cannot get their way legally and the people won’t give them absolute rule, they are now openly attacking the First Amendment. Are you willing to let that happen?
Monday, April 13, 2015
Even Conservative Press Promotes Statism
By Tom Rhodes, 4/13/2015
John Nantz did an article at Townhall.com today trying to say that the killing of Scott by officer Slager was not racist. The entire thing reads like a pro-tyranny you should just obey the government and you won’t get hurt diatribe. Oh he attempts to say cops aren’t racist, but that’s a red herring. The summary is that if you just obeyed you have nothing to fear.
Nantz bases his article on an assertion that is a provable lie, or at minimum purposefully obtuse. Writing, "Cops rarely, if ever, employ force except in circumstances created by the criminal." Every year hundreds and hundreds of videos are posted that show cops using force against people whose only “criminal” activity is to refuse to answer questions and/or refuse to consent to searches. Merely exercising their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
Couple that with the millions of collars confiscated every year by cops by force or under threat of force without ever even charging anybody with a crime much less due process, it is clear that the police commonly employ force based on circumstances they create. Circumstances like “check points” or “stop and frisk” or hundreds of minor infractions based on overcriminalized society. Hell they don’t even have to know the law, the courts have recently ruled if cops believe something is illegal, even if it isn’t, they can use force against a law abiding citizen, and the citizen has no recourse. Simply consider that it is legal for a cop to lie to people to entrap them, but illegal to lie to a cop.
In as much as the basis for the editorial is demonstrably false, the other assertions he makes are also false. In his description of the video, you will note he conveniently fails to mention the video shows the office in question planting evidence and arranging it to justify his killing of Mr. Scott. In other news this week confessions of cops has demonstrated that planting evidence to insure conviction or to justify killing is common not rare. Nantz’s article is obvious propaganda to justify ever increasing tyranny of the government.
Consider the fact running around that notes the cops have killed more people in the USA this year than England’s did in the last century, and we have an obvious problem that the press and our government don’t want the people to address or acknowledge. Our police act more like enforcer for our royal rulers than protectors of individual rights.
Nantz’s editorial from supposedly conservative Townhall.com, is using a false narrative to attempt to have America ignore the rise in government tyranny that is plainly obvious. The press with rare exception, even the “conservative” press, is promoting the pro-statism line. Look at the results of electing majority GOP to both the house and senate. Cronyism and pro-state legislation has not changed one iota since the Democrats controlled the senate, nor from when they controlled the congress and senate. The fix is in the press and ruling elite are working together to mollify the people to accepting statism as the righteous rule.
John Nantz did an article at Townhall.com today trying to say that the killing of Scott by officer Slager was not racist. The entire thing reads like a pro-tyranny you should just obey the government and you won’t get hurt diatribe. Oh he attempts to say cops aren’t racist, but that’s a red herring. The summary is that if you just obeyed you have nothing to fear.
Nantz bases his article on an assertion that is a provable lie, or at minimum purposefully obtuse. Writing, "Cops rarely, if ever, employ force except in circumstances created by the criminal." Every year hundreds and hundreds of videos are posted that show cops using force against people whose only “criminal” activity is to refuse to answer questions and/or refuse to consent to searches. Merely exercising their 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
Couple that with the millions of collars confiscated every year by cops by force or under threat of force without ever even charging anybody with a crime much less due process, it is clear that the police commonly employ force based on circumstances they create. Circumstances like “check points” or “stop and frisk” or hundreds of minor infractions based on overcriminalized society. Hell they don’t even have to know the law, the courts have recently ruled if cops believe something is illegal, even if it isn’t, they can use force against a law abiding citizen, and the citizen has no recourse. Simply consider that it is legal for a cop to lie to people to entrap them, but illegal to lie to a cop.
In as much as the basis for the editorial is demonstrably false, the other assertions he makes are also false. In his description of the video, you will note he conveniently fails to mention the video shows the office in question planting evidence and arranging it to justify his killing of Mr. Scott. In other news this week confessions of cops has demonstrated that planting evidence to insure conviction or to justify killing is common not rare. Nantz’s article is obvious propaganda to justify ever increasing tyranny of the government.
Consider the fact running around that notes the cops have killed more people in the USA this year than England’s did in the last century, and we have an obvious problem that the press and our government don’t want the people to address or acknowledge. Our police act more like enforcer for our royal rulers than protectors of individual rights.
Nantz’s editorial from supposedly conservative Townhall.com, is using a false narrative to attempt to have America ignore the rise in government tyranny that is plainly obvious. The press with rare exception, even the “conservative” press, is promoting the pro-statism line. Look at the results of electing majority GOP to both the house and senate. Cronyism and pro-state legislation has not changed one iota since the Democrats controlled the senate, nor from when they controlled the congress and senate. The fix is in the press and ruling elite are working together to mollify the people to accepting statism as the righteous rule.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Mike Adam's Free Speech College Entrance Exam
Mike Adams is a college professor who recently won a first amendment case aganst the University of North Carolina. They denied him tenure because he was not liberal and chose to exercise his freedom of speech. In hopes of preventing other such free speech problems from infecting college campuses he's offered the follwoing solution.
College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.
We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:
1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).
2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.
3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.
4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.
5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.
6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.
7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.
8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.
9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.
10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.
The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:
1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.
2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.
3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.
After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.
In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.
The above was stolen from a Prof. Mike Adams article. I hope he doesn't get too mad, but it needs to be repeated everywhere it can be.
College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.
We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:
1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).
2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.
3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.
4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.
5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.
6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.
7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.
8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.
9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.
10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.
The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:
1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.
2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.
3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.
After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.
In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.
The above was stolen from a Prof. Mike Adams article. I hope he doesn't get too mad, but it needs to be repeated everywhere it can be.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Democracy in America is Dead.
by Tom Rhodes, 4/24/2014
I know, I know, I know, we live in a republic not a democracy, but the title sounds better in today’s world. As Rome fell, history shows that the representatives of the people, the senate, became irrelevant, the de facto system was rule by a single man and his minions who had the power to kill citizens without due process, create new laws, and ignore existing laws. Does this sound familiar. Today Obama orders the murder of citizens without due process, creates laws with the stroke of the pen, and simply ignores laws he doesn’t like.
Early in the Obama administration I was pilloried by people for claiming Obama was acting like a fascist dictator in my articles about him destroying the rule of law concerning the bankruptcy of GM, the BP Oil Spill, and failure to prosecute Black Panthers. The facts make it clear that I was right. Obama is acting like a two bit dictator. Concerning Obamacare, the President made it clear that regardless of the machinations of the Republicans, the ACA and it’s individual mandate is the “law of the land.” That same law contained very specific and unambiguous language and requirements on start dates, who was required to do what, etc. So, when that same law didn’t make him and his party look good, he simply ignores the “law of the land” and changes it with the stroke of a pen, and congress and the senate do nothing. Changing the ACA by decree is not “democracy.” Congress and the Senate are powerless, their laws are meaningless.
We are no longer a nation of laws, ruled by law, but are now a nation ruled by oligarchy who can dictate new law regardless of the input of the democratically elected representatives the people. This is a very dangerous development that fundamentally transforms the country in ways that will be chaotic. Obama did say he was going to “Fundamentally Change America.” You just didn’t realize it was to turn in from a nation of laws, to a statist tyranny.
We are starting to see massive amounts of Americans routinely ignore the law, to the point where armed citizens are standing up to the government. The BLM backed down in Nevada, they thought an overwhelming show of force would run Bundy off his families century old cattle ranch, instead they were met with an even more overwhelming armed militia, who were prepared to fight for their rights and heritage. Not at all what the government expected. This is what the second amendment is about. Notice that the people didn’t start shooting, but were prepared to fight the government if it choose to use tyrannical force against Bundy.
Rather than capitulate and meet the April 15 deadline, the good people of New York had parties, where they publicly defied NY’s law to register their sporting firearms, and burned their registration forms. Connecticut did the same. It appears that well over 90% of the people simply refuse to obey laws requiring them to register their “assault weapons” and get rid of their standard capacity (30rd) magazines. In Connecticut 2/3rds of law enforcement officers, privately own an assault weapon, and failed to register them as required. Who’s going to enforce the tyranny of the state?
In the USA the president and other elected officials are not royalty, and the people don’t consider them royalty, they are just citizens like the rest of us. So . . . the fact that if the rulers in DC don’t have to obey the law, or can make it up as they want, means the people can too. Without any law to justify his actions, Obama is imposing de facto amnesty on a huge number of illegal aliens through changing the deportation process. Try to illegally move to Mexico, Netherlands, or any number of countries, and you’ll be jailed for a time then deported faster than you can say “Taco.” But break the law and illegally enter the USA, and you get Do the same to the United States, and you get taxpayer-provided health care at the local emergency room, and your kids get in-state tuition, while Johnny from Iowa has to pay higher out of state tuition and is forced to buy overpriced insurance.
Think about it, if you’re from Iowa and you’re kid wants to go to USC, you’ll save tens of thousands of dollars if you renounce your citizenship and live illegally in the country instead of following the law. It’s not like they’ll deport you. If the ruling elite in Washington have their way as in illegal resident, you be able to vote.
Obama has set the example, his subordinates and the bureaucrats are doing the same. Note BLM’s claim that Bundy owes over $1Million dollars is not based on any law passed by congress, but on them creating law as they see fit, that’s why they don’t want to go to court. Each action, new “regulation” that carries the force of law but was not legislatively created, each choice to exclude the enforcement for those the like without any consequences for the ruling elite in dictating rather than serving the citizens of the USA harmed the fabric of our society.
Democracy is dead, the only thing stopping third world style tyranny is the Second amendment and the 80Million of us who choose to exercise and refuse to compromise our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. BLM actions in Nevada were a trial balloon to see how/if the people will react. Hate to say it folks, but the Great Republic that was the USA is dead. This country is going to dissolve into pieces, the reason is clear. Too many of us are unwilling to give up our rights to the oligarchy in DC, and those in DC are too arrogant to see it. What’s more they don’t believe we’ll fight to keep our rights. Although it sounds like a trite paraphrase of Fore Fathers famous “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!” our government is too stupid to realize that far too many people would rather “Live Free or Die.” Look at We The People’s actions in response to BLM tyranny in Nevada. This country was founded by people who rebelled against central authority and control, that rebel spirit lives.
Our Democracy is dead; the ruling elite have so limited and controlled the elections offering us two flavors of statists, Democrat and Republican, and now simply choose to ignore even those representatives; the people now have no moral or rational reason to respect any law. Once we were a republic ruled by law, and men who understood divided power, checks and balances, and limited government; now we are ruled by the whims of a statist despotic oligarchy who believe they have unlimited power. Free men can and will take up arms and will fight tyranny. Are you a free man? Are you willing to fight tyranny? Or are you a slave, who will cower at your master and hope to be allowed to keep enough to survive? Or are you a slave, who willing supports your master, thankfully trading your liberty for the “security” he promises. Or are you fooled by a tyrannical master, who gives you meager shabby food and shelter, proclaiming they are your “entitlements?”
I know, I know, I know, we live in a republic not a democracy, but the title sounds better in today’s world. As Rome fell, history shows that the representatives of the people, the senate, became irrelevant, the de facto system was rule by a single man and his minions who had the power to kill citizens without due process, create new laws, and ignore existing laws. Does this sound familiar. Today Obama orders the murder of citizens without due process, creates laws with the stroke of the pen, and simply ignores laws he doesn’t like.
Early in the Obama administration I was pilloried by people for claiming Obama was acting like a fascist dictator in my articles about him destroying the rule of law concerning the bankruptcy of GM, the BP Oil Spill, and failure to prosecute Black Panthers. The facts make it clear that I was right. Obama is acting like a two bit dictator. Concerning Obamacare, the President made it clear that regardless of the machinations of the Republicans, the ACA and it’s individual mandate is the “law of the land.” That same law contained very specific and unambiguous language and requirements on start dates, who was required to do what, etc. So, when that same law didn’t make him and his party look good, he simply ignores the “law of the land” and changes it with the stroke of a pen, and congress and the senate do nothing. Changing the ACA by decree is not “democracy.” Congress and the Senate are powerless, their laws are meaningless.
We are no longer a nation of laws, ruled by law, but are now a nation ruled by oligarchy who can dictate new law regardless of the input of the democratically elected representatives the people. This is a very dangerous development that fundamentally transforms the country in ways that will be chaotic. Obama did say he was going to “Fundamentally Change America.” You just didn’t realize it was to turn in from a nation of laws, to a statist tyranny.
We are starting to see massive amounts of Americans routinely ignore the law, to the point where armed citizens are standing up to the government. The BLM backed down in Nevada, they thought an overwhelming show of force would run Bundy off his families century old cattle ranch, instead they were met with an even more overwhelming armed militia, who were prepared to fight for their rights and heritage. Not at all what the government expected. This is what the second amendment is about. Notice that the people didn’t start shooting, but were prepared to fight the government if it choose to use tyrannical force against Bundy.
Rather than capitulate and meet the April 15 deadline, the good people of New York had parties, where they publicly defied NY’s law to register their sporting firearms, and burned their registration forms. Connecticut did the same. It appears that well over 90% of the people simply refuse to obey laws requiring them to register their “assault weapons” and get rid of their standard capacity (30rd) magazines. In Connecticut 2/3rds of law enforcement officers, privately own an assault weapon, and failed to register them as required. Who’s going to enforce the tyranny of the state?
In the USA the president and other elected officials are not royalty, and the people don’t consider them royalty, they are just citizens like the rest of us. So . . . the fact that if the rulers in DC don’t have to obey the law, or can make it up as they want, means the people can too. Without any law to justify his actions, Obama is imposing de facto amnesty on a huge number of illegal aliens through changing the deportation process. Try to illegally move to Mexico, Netherlands, or any number of countries, and you’ll be jailed for a time then deported faster than you can say “Taco.” But break the law and illegally enter the USA, and you get Do the same to the United States, and you get taxpayer-provided health care at the local emergency room, and your kids get in-state tuition, while Johnny from Iowa has to pay higher out of state tuition and is forced to buy overpriced insurance.
Think about it, if you’re from Iowa and you’re kid wants to go to USC, you’ll save tens of thousands of dollars if you renounce your citizenship and live illegally in the country instead of following the law. It’s not like they’ll deport you. If the ruling elite in Washington have their way as in illegal resident, you be able to vote.
Obama has set the example, his subordinates and the bureaucrats are doing the same. Note BLM’s claim that Bundy owes over $1Million dollars is not based on any law passed by congress, but on them creating law as they see fit, that’s why they don’t want to go to court. Each action, new “regulation” that carries the force of law but was not legislatively created, each choice to exclude the enforcement for those the like without any consequences for the ruling elite in dictating rather than serving the citizens of the USA harmed the fabric of our society.
Democracy is dead, the only thing stopping third world style tyranny is the Second amendment and the 80Million of us who choose to exercise and refuse to compromise our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. BLM actions in Nevada were a trial balloon to see how/if the people will react. Hate to say it folks, but the Great Republic that was the USA is dead. This country is going to dissolve into pieces, the reason is clear. Too many of us are unwilling to give up our rights to the oligarchy in DC, and those in DC are too arrogant to see it. What’s more they don’t believe we’ll fight to keep our rights. Although it sounds like a trite paraphrase of Fore Fathers famous “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!” our government is too stupid to realize that far too many people would rather “Live Free or Die.” Look at We The People’s actions in response to BLM tyranny in Nevada. This country was founded by people who rebelled against central authority and control, that rebel spirit lives.
Our Democracy is dead; the ruling elite have so limited and controlled the elections offering us two flavors of statists, Democrat and Republican, and now simply choose to ignore even those representatives; the people now have no moral or rational reason to respect any law. Once we were a republic ruled by law, and men who understood divided power, checks and balances, and limited government; now we are ruled by the whims of a statist despotic oligarchy who believe they have unlimited power. Free men can and will take up arms and will fight tyranny. Are you a free man? Are you willing to fight tyranny? Or are you a slave, who will cower at your master and hope to be allowed to keep enough to survive? Or are you a slave, who willing supports your master, thankfully trading your liberty for the “security” he promises. Or are you fooled by a tyrannical master, who gives you meager shabby food and shelter, proclaiming they are your “entitlements?”
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Culture Worth Protecting
By Tom Rhodes, 4/1/2014
Yesterday in “Ugly History” I asked “Why not compare the size scope and power of centralized government with income inequality here in the USA and abroad?” The answer is clear, the less centralized power the less income inequality and better overall standard of living for more people. History is also clear that less central authority is not the norm, in fact power being concentrated in a few or even one person is the norm. The bigger question would be, what is different about the USA that resulted in a disproportionately powerful country with a relatively high standard of living for just about everybody.
The answer is culture; specifically Modern Western Culture. No not all cultures should be valued or accepted as equal, Modern Western Civilization as a culture is in fact superior to other cultures. Starting in ancient Greece, then the Roman Empire, to the British Empire and culminating in the United States. Western culture has not only been more successful any other culture but superior to 90% of all other cultures. If you emptied the USA of its people and put the people of other cultures, say Venezuela, or Iran, or Pakistan, or any population of a Sub Saharan African nation in the USA it would soon become the backwater third world cesspool, resembling that nation. Western Civilization emphasizes innovation, capitalism, science, technology, Christianity, freedom, individual rights, and individualism.
The biggest aspect of Western Civilization that made the USA greater than even the European nations it originated is our abandonment of aristocracy with the assumption that all individual are sovereign. The USA is a Merit-Based society where even a black man whose foreign father from a third world nation can rise to President. Your tribe, caste, heritage, etc. are meaningless. Consider Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, of yesteryear or Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg of today; you probably can’t name their parents, what school they went to, or (other than European) their heritage, because it isn’t important. What is important is how they made life better for their fellow members of society and were justly rewarded by society voluntarily buying the products and services they provide. By and large the USA is a merit-based society, or at least was. Our culture is changing, we now have our mini-aristocrats like the Kennedy or Bush families. As we move to centralized authority, protect the established from competition, and punish success, the more stratified, stagnant and aristocratic we become as a culture.
Unlike Rome and Britian the USA has not used is awesome power to conquer the rest of the world. Well for a large part of our history we didn’t, but today we “nation build” and take other aristocratic actions thinking we know better how people should live than they do themselves. The reason the USA doesn’t just go and take and conquer other nations (which we could) is fairly fundamental. It is the root of our greatness. We believe in individual sovereignty. We distrust to our very core government and central authority. Nothing is more fundamentally American that a deep seated mistrust of government. Our Forefathers so distrusted a strong central government that when creating a new government it divided it’s powers, and severely limited the powers central government could have.
The fact is that the bigger and more powerful the government becomes, the smaller, weaker and poorer the people become. We used to be fanatical about small, decentralized government. Remember the old cliché “Don’t make a federal case about it”? that cliché is all but gone from modern speech, as the rationale for it no longer makes sense. As we move further away from the principle of limited government, we move in to the expected economic stagnation, militarized police state, massive debt, and tyranny from our government. The idea that the government can dictate what products or services you must, by law, be required to purchase, is so un-American that now implemented, it is tearing our country apart.
We quit protecting our culture, and have allowed failed cultures that grant totalitarian authority to some religious leaders, or autocrat, or oligarchy to infest ours. By granting non-western cultures equal status as our modern Western Culture we are seeding the demise of our culture to demonstrably inferior cultures with centralize authority to dictate how people live. No other culture grants any individual the right to rise to historic levels of wealth and power based on his own merit alone. Of course such a culture is inherently risky, it also allows individuals to fail, even to the point of impoverishment. There is no freedom from privation, starvation, and negative consequences of poor life decisions when you have the liberty to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. As we allow those who value security, safety, and surety of knowing they won’t suffer if they fail to provide for themselves, to garner more voice in how we are governed, we lose the very culture that created an obesity epidemic in our poor. Name another culture where the poor suffer from obesity rather than starvation.
From the great abundance that our culture has produced has also come the most generous people the world ever saw. Earthquake, tsunami, flood, or whatever disaster nature or man may cause anywhere in the world, and the private charity and generosity of the people of the USA will literally flood the victims with food, water, money, and people to help. No other culture produces people so willing to materially sacrifice for their fellow man. This spirit of charity comes from the Christian roots of our culture. The people of no Islamic culture are so generous, nor are the people of a pagan culture so generous, nor are the people of an atheistic culture so generous. Whether an American is a Christian or not, Modern Western Culture is deeply rooted in Christianity. The basis of Christianity is free will, individual choice; the belief that you have a choice to be a Christian and receive all the benefits or reject Christ and suffer the consequences. Modern Western Culture is based on that idea, liberty and libertarian thought are rooted in biblical truth.
The questions are why and what is different about the USA. The answer was the Culture. We must return our culture to the values that made the USA the greatest nation the world ever saw. If we don’t it will turn into another third world tyrannical cesspool where might makes right and rights are granted to some not guaranteed to all. It’s April Fool’s Day, the joke is on us, only fools believes that you can accept massive numbers of people into your country that don’t share your culture and expect to keep and maintain your culture.
Yesterday in “Ugly History” I asked “Why not compare the size scope and power of centralized government with income inequality here in the USA and abroad?” The answer is clear, the less centralized power the less income inequality and better overall standard of living for more people. History is also clear that less central authority is not the norm, in fact power being concentrated in a few or even one person is the norm. The bigger question would be, what is different about the USA that resulted in a disproportionately powerful country with a relatively high standard of living for just about everybody.
The answer is culture; specifically Modern Western Culture. No not all cultures should be valued or accepted as equal, Modern Western Civilization as a culture is in fact superior to other cultures. Starting in ancient Greece, then the Roman Empire, to the British Empire and culminating in the United States. Western culture has not only been more successful any other culture but superior to 90% of all other cultures. If you emptied the USA of its people and put the people of other cultures, say Venezuela, or Iran, or Pakistan, or any population of a Sub Saharan African nation in the USA it would soon become the backwater third world cesspool, resembling that nation. Western Civilization emphasizes innovation, capitalism, science, technology, Christianity, freedom, individual rights, and individualism.
The biggest aspect of Western Civilization that made the USA greater than even the European nations it originated is our abandonment of aristocracy with the assumption that all individual are sovereign. The USA is a Merit-Based society where even a black man whose foreign father from a third world nation can rise to President. Your tribe, caste, heritage, etc. are meaningless. Consider Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, of yesteryear or Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg of today; you probably can’t name their parents, what school they went to, or (other than European) their heritage, because it isn’t important. What is important is how they made life better for their fellow members of society and were justly rewarded by society voluntarily buying the products and services they provide. By and large the USA is a merit-based society, or at least was. Our culture is changing, we now have our mini-aristocrats like the Kennedy or Bush families. As we move to centralized authority, protect the established from competition, and punish success, the more stratified, stagnant and aristocratic we become as a culture.
Unlike Rome and Britian the USA has not used is awesome power to conquer the rest of the world. Well for a large part of our history we didn’t, but today we “nation build” and take other aristocratic actions thinking we know better how people should live than they do themselves. The reason the USA doesn’t just go and take and conquer other nations (which we could) is fairly fundamental. It is the root of our greatness. We believe in individual sovereignty. We distrust to our very core government and central authority. Nothing is more fundamentally American that a deep seated mistrust of government. Our Forefathers so distrusted a strong central government that when creating a new government it divided it’s powers, and severely limited the powers central government could have.
The fact is that the bigger and more powerful the government becomes, the smaller, weaker and poorer the people become. We used to be fanatical about small, decentralized government. Remember the old cliché “Don’t make a federal case about it”? that cliché is all but gone from modern speech, as the rationale for it no longer makes sense. As we move further away from the principle of limited government, we move in to the expected economic stagnation, militarized police state, massive debt, and tyranny from our government. The idea that the government can dictate what products or services you must, by law, be required to purchase, is so un-American that now implemented, it is tearing our country apart.
We quit protecting our culture, and have allowed failed cultures that grant totalitarian authority to some religious leaders, or autocrat, or oligarchy to infest ours. By granting non-western cultures equal status as our modern Western Culture we are seeding the demise of our culture to demonstrably inferior cultures with centralize authority to dictate how people live. No other culture grants any individual the right to rise to historic levels of wealth and power based on his own merit alone. Of course such a culture is inherently risky, it also allows individuals to fail, even to the point of impoverishment. There is no freedom from privation, starvation, and negative consequences of poor life decisions when you have the liberty to succeed beyond your wildest dreams. As we allow those who value security, safety, and surety of knowing they won’t suffer if they fail to provide for themselves, to garner more voice in how we are governed, we lose the very culture that created an obesity epidemic in our poor. Name another culture where the poor suffer from obesity rather than starvation.
From the great abundance that our culture has produced has also come the most generous people the world ever saw. Earthquake, tsunami, flood, or whatever disaster nature or man may cause anywhere in the world, and the private charity and generosity of the people of the USA will literally flood the victims with food, water, money, and people to help. No other culture produces people so willing to materially sacrifice for their fellow man. This spirit of charity comes from the Christian roots of our culture. The people of no Islamic culture are so generous, nor are the people of a pagan culture so generous, nor are the people of an atheistic culture so generous. Whether an American is a Christian or not, Modern Western Culture is deeply rooted in Christianity. The basis of Christianity is free will, individual choice; the belief that you have a choice to be a Christian and receive all the benefits or reject Christ and suffer the consequences. Modern Western Culture is based on that idea, liberty and libertarian thought are rooted in biblical truth.
The questions are why and what is different about the USA. The answer was the Culture. We must return our culture to the values that made the USA the greatest nation the world ever saw. If we don’t it will turn into another third world tyrannical cesspool where might makes right and rights are granted to some not guaranteed to all. It’s April Fool’s Day, the joke is on us, only fools believes that you can accept massive numbers of people into your country that don’t share your culture and expect to keep and maintain your culture.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Ugly Moment in History
By Tom Rhodes, 3/31/2014
Last Week noted socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said we’re living in an “ugly moment in American history” because of income inequality in the country. He went on to lament, “We have right now in real terms almost 13 percent of our people are unemployed.” He also noted “the rich are doing phenomenally well and corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits.” His solution is to increase welfare, and government.
Why not compare the size scope and power of centralized government with income inequality here in the USA and abroad?
Why not compare education quality with central control (government control) versus less centralized authority to less centralized control?
The answers are clear, the more control is concentrated and centralized, the more inequality in income we have. And if you compare the standardized test scores of government schools to charter schools to private schools to home schools we see the further from centralized command and control you get the better the education results.
Rationally, returning to less central control and authority would result in less income inequality and better education. The reason this is not discussed or an option is that results in less power for the few over the many, they want the power.
We clearly see that as the USA loses positions on the economic liberty scale we also lose positions on the standard of living scale. The solution is risky, some will fail, but less government has and will result in more for the common people.
The solution to lobbyists buying off elected officials, isn't more laws against lobbyists, it's taking away the power of elected officials so whether they are bought off or not, doesn't make a difference.
When we look at ugly moments in history, from ancient Rome to the Dark ages to the mass murder and starvation of Communism in the 20th Century, to Fascism and ethnic cleansing, what we see is that the more centralized command and control of a population the more we see corruption and oppression. We are repeating ugly history.
Last Week noted socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said we’re living in an “ugly moment in American history” because of income inequality in the country. He went on to lament, “We have right now in real terms almost 13 percent of our people are unemployed.” He also noted “the rich are doing phenomenally well and corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits.” His solution is to increase welfare, and government.
Why not compare the size scope and power of centralized government with income inequality here in the USA and abroad?
Why not compare education quality with central control (government control) versus less centralized authority to less centralized control?
The answers are clear, the more control is concentrated and centralized, the more inequality in income we have. And if you compare the standardized test scores of government schools to charter schools to private schools to home schools we see the further from centralized command and control you get the better the education results.
Rationally, returning to less central control and authority would result in less income inequality and better education. The reason this is not discussed or an option is that results in less power for the few over the many, they want the power.
We clearly see that as the USA loses positions on the economic liberty scale we also lose positions on the standard of living scale. The solution is risky, some will fail, but less government has and will result in more for the common people.
The solution to lobbyists buying off elected officials, isn't more laws against lobbyists, it's taking away the power of elected officials so whether they are bought off or not, doesn't make a difference.
When we look at ugly moments in history, from ancient Rome to the Dark ages to the mass murder and starvation of Communism in the 20th Century, to Fascism and ethnic cleansing, what we see is that the more centralized command and control of a population the more we see corruption and oppression. We are repeating ugly history.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Why Rational People Don’t Believe in Man Made Global Warming.
By Tom Rhodes, 1/10/2013
The question is: Why most rational people no longer believe in the theory of man caused global warming?
The Answer is simple: Of the global warming alarmists claims 97.4% have proven to be wrong.
That’s right the Journal Nature Climate Change looked at the claims and so called “settled science” and the conclusion is that those using “climate change” to as a rationale for increased government tyranny, like what light bulb you’re allowed to manufacture, sell, and purchase, is based on lies.
John Christy, professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville noted: “I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.”.
Climate scientist John Christy said, “It’s a real problem [the misinformation] … it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models
Rational people are rejecting the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming theory for one basic reason, it is demonstrably false. It's clear the science deniers are those who insist on taking action and screaming man is destroying the climate.
Skeptics of global warming are not “deniers”. It's the guys who sail their ship into an ice-locked portion of the arctic while looking for signs that the polar icecaps are melting, that are "deniers".
The question is: Why most rational people no longer believe in the theory of man caused global warming?
The Answer is simple: Of the global warming alarmists claims 97.4% have proven to be wrong.
That’s right the Journal Nature Climate Change looked at the claims and so called “settled science” and the conclusion is that those using “climate change” to as a rationale for increased government tyranny, like what light bulb you’re allowed to manufacture, sell, and purchase, is based on lies.
John Christy, professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville noted: “I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.”.
Climate scientist John Christy said, “It’s a real problem [the misinformation] … it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models
Rational people are rejecting the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming theory for one basic reason, it is demonstrably false. It's clear the science deniers are those who insist on taking action and screaming man is destroying the climate.
Skeptics of global warming are not “deniers”. It's the guys who sail their ship into an ice-locked portion of the arctic while looking for signs that the polar icecaps are melting, that are "deniers".
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny
By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2013
Those who embrace liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms suffer from the delusion that the ruling elite know better how every person should live. This is a fantasy or more rationally a logical fallacy of category error. They actually believe that the state "loves" you and should be the parent, god, tribal elder, city council, uncle, teacher, and provider for every person in society. What's worse is they believe that the state can be all things to all people. They believe that because some people don't make the life choices that they think are best, the state should have the authority to force people to do what's "right" for their own good. C.S. Lewis described this phenomenon.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis
For your own good liberals want to:
Control where you go to school
Regulate your work
Regulate your play
Control what doctor you can see
Control what treatments your doctor can prescribe
Decide when you retire
Decide how much money you can keep when you retire
Decide how you must save and invest for retirement
Decide if when you've made enough money
Decide what ideas can be taught in school
Decide what religious beliefs you must tolerate
Decide what religious beliefs you must reject
Control Charities
Control your choice of transportation
Control you where you live
Dictate what you can and can't eat
For the state to provide for the people, and to protect the people, and to control people from making bad choices takes money. The reality of TANSTAAFL means that the state must have massive amounts of money. They embrace the idea that has served foundational for the last centuries most brutal regimes; the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.
They believe they know what's best for you and know how other people should life. The issue isn't that they live how they want to live, they want to force everybody to live how they want to live.
They like gay marriage therefore everyone must be forced to like gay marriage.
They hate guns, therefore nobody should be allowed to own guns.
They like Sesame Street, therefore everybody should pay for Sesame Street.
They prefer vertical urban life styles therefore in the name of "sustainability" everybody should be forced to live in more urban areas.
They hate the rich, therefore nobody should be rich.
They like NPR, therefore everybody should pay for NPR.
They like abortion, therefore everybody should pay for their abortions.
The problem with leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever left leaning -ists you want to name, they firmly believe that because what they want is good, you shouldn't have the choice not do what they believe is good. They believe that if you don't believe like them then you are either too stupid to understand the "goodness" of their beliefs or you are evil. In either case, your stupidity or evil nature justifies them forcing you to do as they believe "for your own good" or "for the good of society." They literally hunger to control those who they believe are evil, or not smart enough to understand the goodness of their beliefs.
Because liberals with all their hart want what's best for everybody, want nobody to ever suffer, and have the best of intentions, they hate the free market. The free market allows people to choose what they want, not what progressives think is best for them. Emotionally at a deep caring and loving level, they know that "if only" people would do as they think is right everybody would be better. Liberal thinking works on some magical "utopian" level, devoid of reality or understanding of human nature. They actually believe that because some people are too stupid or are evil they don't always make "good" choices, therefore they, the ruling elite, who know better how everybody should live, should have the authority to force "good" choices on everybody.
Liberals also believe that if somebody makes a mistake, to avoid acute suffering that everybody should pay for that mistake that way the consequences of a mistake are shared and nobody suffers too much. If an individual chooses not to make the best of the education offered, and chooses to have children without a means of support, rather than see that person or the children suffer, everybody should have to pay to house, feed, clothe, and care for them. If a city, raises its taxes to a point most businesses, and virtually all of the middle and upper class of people move to less onerous parts of the country, while giving huge extensive pay and retirement packages to city workers, resulting in bankruptcy, like Detroit, rather than the people of that city and its creditors suffering the consequences of those mistakes in leadership, liberals believe EVERYBODY must pay to bail them out. If a state does the same thing and goes billions into debt, and creates an environment where there are more people on welfare than working, like California, liberals believe that rather than let the people of California suffer the consequences of their elected leaders mistakes, the people of Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and all the other states where the people have forced state governments to have balanced budgets must help pay for California, Illinois, and New York's mistakes.
Liberalism, and the oppressive tyranny it imposes forces one-size-fits-all actions in a world where the people have more and more choices every day. Let's face it, Amazon.com completes more transactions with a vaster variety of products every minute, than the recently upgraded and "fixed" one-size-fits-all Healthcare.gov has ever been able to complete in a day. Healthcare.gov is a massive mistake created for "your own good" that everybody must pay for. It is tyranny in action for your own good.
The very idea that because some people if given the freedom to make life choices might not make the wisest choices, the state should have the authority to force people to accept limits on those choices is the underlying premise of modern liberals. Once accepting that premise, they extrapolate that to put the responsibility for the consequences on the state, and as such it has the authority to force those who exercise what freedom it allows profitably to pay for the unwise life choices of everyone else. Liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms are a non-functional, authoritative, overbearing philosophy that depends on tyranny to implement and is completely out of step with the modern world and the very idea of liberty.
Liberal ideas cannot be implemented without force, as such most are immoral. Simply put Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny
Those who embrace liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms suffer from the delusion that the ruling elite know better how every person should live. This is a fantasy or more rationally a logical fallacy of category error. They actually believe that the state "loves" you and should be the parent, god, tribal elder, city council, uncle, teacher, and provider for every person in society. What's worse is they believe that the state can be all things to all people. They believe that because some people don't make the life choices that they think are best, the state should have the authority to force people to do what's "right" for their own good. C.S. Lewis described this phenomenon.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis
For your own good liberals want to:
For the state to provide for the people, and to protect the people, and to control people from making bad choices takes money. The reality of TANSTAAFL means that the state must have massive amounts of money. They embrace the idea that has served foundational for the last centuries most brutal regimes; the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.
They believe they know what's best for you and know how other people should life. The issue isn't that they live how they want to live, they want to force everybody to live how they want to live.
The problem with leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever left leaning -ists you want to name, they firmly believe that because what they want is good, you shouldn't have the choice not do what they believe is good. They believe that if you don't believe like them then you are either too stupid to understand the "goodness" of their beliefs or you are evil. In either case, your stupidity or evil nature justifies them forcing you to do as they believe "for your own good" or "for the good of society." They literally hunger to control those who they believe are evil, or not smart enough to understand the goodness of their beliefs.
Because liberals with all their hart want what's best for everybody, want nobody to ever suffer, and have the best of intentions, they hate the free market. The free market allows people to choose what they want, not what progressives think is best for them. Emotionally at a deep caring and loving level, they know that "if only" people would do as they think is right everybody would be better. Liberal thinking works on some magical "utopian" level, devoid of reality or understanding of human nature. They actually believe that because some people are too stupid or are evil they don't always make "good" choices, therefore they, the ruling elite, who know better how everybody should live, should have the authority to force "good" choices on everybody.
Liberals also believe that if somebody makes a mistake, to avoid acute suffering that everybody should pay for that mistake that way the consequences of a mistake are shared and nobody suffers too much. If an individual chooses not to make the best of the education offered, and chooses to have children without a means of support, rather than see that person or the children suffer, everybody should have to pay to house, feed, clothe, and care for them. If a city, raises its taxes to a point most businesses, and virtually all of the middle and upper class of people move to less onerous parts of the country, while giving huge extensive pay and retirement packages to city workers, resulting in bankruptcy, like Detroit, rather than the people of that city and its creditors suffering the consequences of those mistakes in leadership, liberals believe EVERYBODY must pay to bail them out. If a state does the same thing and goes billions into debt, and creates an environment where there are more people on welfare than working, like California, liberals believe that rather than let the people of California suffer the consequences of their elected leaders mistakes, the people of Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and all the other states where the people have forced state governments to have balanced budgets must help pay for California, Illinois, and New York's mistakes.
Liberalism, and the oppressive tyranny it imposes forces one-size-fits-all actions in a world where the people have more and more choices every day. Let's face it, Amazon.com completes more transactions with a vaster variety of products every minute, than the recently upgraded and "fixed" one-size-fits-all Healthcare.gov has ever been able to complete in a day. Healthcare.gov is a massive mistake created for "your own good" that everybody must pay for. It is tyranny in action for your own good.
The very idea that because some people if given the freedom to make life choices might not make the wisest choices, the state should have the authority to force people to accept limits on those choices is the underlying premise of modern liberals. Once accepting that premise, they extrapolate that to put the responsibility for the consequences on the state, and as such it has the authority to force those who exercise what freedom it allows profitably to pay for the unwise life choices of everyone else. Liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms are a non-functional, authoritative, overbearing philosophy that depends on tyranny to implement and is completely out of step with the modern world and the very idea of liberty.
Liberal ideas cannot be implemented without force, as such most are immoral. Simply put Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Baker Act Obama
By Tom Rhodes, 11/6/2013
Recent events make it clear that we need to question Obama’s competency to hold office. I don’t mean is he inept, I mean is he mentally and emotionally competent to hold office? Obama will not, and probably emotionally cannot, take responsibility for his own actions and words. By now everybody knows he made a calculated political decision and purposefully lied to the American people in order to pass Obamacare.
No amount of torture to the facts will change them. What is now clearly evident is that he has real difficulty taking responsibility for anything he says or does. Even if you love Obama you can’t ignore this fact. There are dozens of video accounts of Obama making this clear declarative promise to the American people in order to get them to urge their congress persons to enact Obamacare. “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance." In every case it made it very clear with no “ifs” “ands” or “buts.”
NBC, not noted for being anti-Obama, also released news showing proof that Obama and his administration knew that Obamacare would result in MILLIONS of people being forced out of their individual insurance plans. Knowing the truth at the time he repeatedly promised America “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance" without putting in any qualifying “ifs” “ands” or “buts” leads to a clear and unambiguous conclusion: Obama purposefully made a calculated decision to lie and mislead the American people.
Obama knew if he told the truth his chosen path to reach his clearly stated goal of single payer government controlled health care would falter, so he clearly and purposefully lied to the American people. Now that he has been caught and exposed, even as a lame-duck who that cannot be reelected and doesn’t have to run for office, he won’t admit to the truth that he and everybody else knows. If it weren’t real and so costly to our society and culture, you might think it’s funny; Substitute a Dead Parrot for Obamacare and you feel like you’re watching an old Monty Python sketch.
This week he again lied saying, "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
That isn’t what he said, that isn’t what he implied, that isn’t what he meant; I know it, you know it, the press knows it, Obama’s administration knows it, and Obama knows it. He made a promise loud and clear that he knew was a lie, and now that it’s exposed he isn’t man enough, strong enough, or honest enough to own it. He sold us a Dead Parrot.
Most parents won’t even tolerate that from their 6 year old child; from the man elected to the highest office in the land, it’s unacceptable, despicable, immature, self deluded, irrational behavior. When an adult is confronted with clear uncontroversial video evidence of their lies, and maintain that they weren’t lying, something is clearly wrong. Obama needs help, he’s got a sick mind and obviously suffers from some kind of delusion. He needs professional help. You’ve heard of a “Napoleon Complex” haven’t you? There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have become obviously mentally unstable, Caligula comes to mind.
In this day and age with our advanced psychological diagnostics and counseling techniques, I’m sure he can be helped, maybe use electroshock therapy. In Florida we have the “Baker Act” where a person whose mental stability makes us suspect that they are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily locked up. In as much as his decisions can be imminently dangerous to massive numbers of people it is clear that we should Baker Act Obama.
Recent events make it clear that we need to question Obama’s competency to hold office. I don’t mean is he inept, I mean is he mentally and emotionally competent to hold office? Obama will not, and probably emotionally cannot, take responsibility for his own actions and words. By now everybody knows he made a calculated political decision and purposefully lied to the American people in order to pass Obamacare.
No amount of torture to the facts will change them. What is now clearly evident is that he has real difficulty taking responsibility for anything he says or does. Even if you love Obama you can’t ignore this fact. There are dozens of video accounts of Obama making this clear declarative promise to the American people in order to get them to urge their congress persons to enact Obamacare. “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance." In every case it made it very clear with no “ifs” “ands” or “buts.”
NBC, not noted for being anti-Obama, also released news showing proof that Obama and his administration knew that Obamacare would result in MILLIONS of people being forced out of their individual insurance plans. Knowing the truth at the time he repeatedly promised America “If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance" without putting in any qualifying “ifs” “ands” or “buts” leads to a clear and unambiguous conclusion: Obama purposefully made a calculated decision to lie and mislead the American people.
Obama knew if he told the truth his chosen path to reach his clearly stated goal of single payer government controlled health care would falter, so he clearly and purposefully lied to the American people. Now that he has been caught and exposed, even as a lame-duck who that cannot be reelected and doesn’t have to run for office, he won’t admit to the truth that he and everybody else knows. If it weren’t real and so costly to our society and culture, you might think it’s funny; Substitute a Dead Parrot for Obamacare and you feel like you’re watching an old Monty Python sketch.
This week he again lied saying, "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."
That isn’t what he said, that isn’t what he implied, that isn’t what he meant; I know it, you know it, the press knows it, Obama’s administration knows it, and Obama knows it. He made a promise loud and clear that he knew was a lie, and now that it’s exposed he isn’t man enough, strong enough, or honest enough to own it. He sold us a Dead Parrot.
Most parents won’t even tolerate that from their 6 year old child; from the man elected to the highest office in the land, it’s unacceptable, despicable, immature, self deluded, irrational behavior. When an adult is confronted with clear uncontroversial video evidence of their lies, and maintain that they weren’t lying, something is clearly wrong. Obama needs help, he’s got a sick mind and obviously suffers from some kind of delusion. He needs professional help. You’ve heard of a “Napoleon Complex” haven’t you? There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have become obviously mentally unstable, Caligula comes to mind.
In this day and age with our advanced psychological diagnostics and counseling techniques, I’m sure he can be helped, maybe use electroshock therapy. In Florida we have the “Baker Act” where a person whose mental stability makes us suspect that they are a danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily locked up. In as much as his decisions can be imminently dangerous to massive numbers of people it is clear that we should Baker Act Obama.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Democrats Call for Certain Tradesman to be Slaves of the State
By Tom Rhodes, 11/4/2013
The reality is that Democrats believe in totalitarianism; not that the Republicans are much better. On Nov, 1st, in a debate, Kathleen Murphy, Democrat candidate for Virginia’s House of Delegates, said she believed that the government by law, should force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Murphy’s reasoning was that because many doctors are not accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, it should be a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.
That’s sick, she is saying that by law some people should be forced into working regardless of what they are paid. Many Primary Care Doctors are refusing to accept ne Medicaid and Medicare patients because the government payments don’t cover the costs of services rendered.
Forcing doctors to work, and paying them less than it costs to do that work can easily be seen to fit the very definition of slavery. The World English Dictionary defines slavery as follows:
You can sugar coat it however you want, but Democrat Kathleen Murphy believes that there is a civil relationship between the state and doctors that grants the state absolute power of doctors’ life, liberty and fortunes. In fact the entire Obamacare law, which was passed with only Democrat votes in the house and senate, works under the authoritarian belief that the state has absolute power of the citizens and can force them to purchase the products and services the state demands. You as a mere citizen do not have the freedom to choose how much or even if you want to purchase health insurance. When it comes to healthcare, the State has absolute power over you.
There are other methods authoritarian totalitarians use to enslave the masses. If you were trying to keep more and more people as debt slaves to you, then pushing more and more people into programs that indebt them and no means to get out of that debt would be a good method. Like pushing the idea that ALL students should be prepared for and go to college. The reality is that this idea and policy creates massive numbers of people, who shouldn’t have gone to college, to being deep in student loan debt and have no degrees or worthless degrees. Note how the government owns all student loans, and there are no methods, including bankruptcy, to ever discharge that debt and it is at higher interest rate and suffers greater penalties than other loans.
The system works as designed. NCLB, and education debt are a more subtle, hidden way to enslave the masses, but the Democrats aren’t even trying to hide their totalitarian mindset anymore. What would you call, a government that forces certain tradesmen work regardless of pay, if not totalitarianism?
Do you have a right to working indoor plumbing, and as such a right to force plumbers to keep your plumbing in good repair? Nothing has proven to benefit the health of people than modern plumbing. Would you accept the idea that the government can decree by law a plumber must fix toilets and accept payment for repairs less than the cost of doing the repair? Plumbers are tradesmen; their work has lead to longer lives and less disease than the work of doctors. Doctors are just that, highly trained individuals, a.k.a. tradesmen, in the healing trade.
Why are Democrats calling for people in certain trades to be enslaved by government? The bigger question is why is America and the press accepting of totalitarianism, that the Democrats so embolden, can openly call for enslaving people who are in certain trades and the press and the people don’t even notice?
The reality is that Democrats believe in totalitarianism; not that the Republicans are much better. On Nov, 1st, in a debate, Kathleen Murphy, Democrat candidate for Virginia’s House of Delegates, said she believed that the government by law, should force doctors to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. Murphy’s reasoning was that because many doctors are not accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, it should be a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.
That’s sick, she is saying that by law some people should be forced into working regardless of what they are paid. Many Primary Care Doctors are refusing to accept ne Medicaid and Medicare patients because the government payments don’t cover the costs of services rendered.
Forcing doctors to work, and paying them less than it costs to do that work can easily be seen to fit the very definition of slavery. The World English Dictionary defines slavery as follows:
1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. work done in harsh conditions for low pay
You can sugar coat it however you want, but Democrat Kathleen Murphy believes that there is a civil relationship between the state and doctors that grants the state absolute power of doctors’ life, liberty and fortunes. In fact the entire Obamacare law, which was passed with only Democrat votes in the house and senate, works under the authoritarian belief that the state has absolute power of the citizens and can force them to purchase the products and services the state demands. You as a mere citizen do not have the freedom to choose how much or even if you want to purchase health insurance. When it comes to healthcare, the State has absolute power over you.
There are other methods authoritarian totalitarians use to enslave the masses. If you were trying to keep more and more people as debt slaves to you, then pushing more and more people into programs that indebt them and no means to get out of that debt would be a good method. Like pushing the idea that ALL students should be prepared for and go to college. The reality is that this idea and policy creates massive numbers of people, who shouldn’t have gone to college, to being deep in student loan debt and have no degrees or worthless degrees. Note how the government owns all student loans, and there are no methods, including bankruptcy, to ever discharge that debt and it is at higher interest rate and suffers greater penalties than other loans.
The system works as designed. NCLB, and education debt are a more subtle, hidden way to enslave the masses, but the Democrats aren’t even trying to hide their totalitarian mindset anymore. What would you call, a government that forces certain tradesmen work regardless of pay, if not totalitarianism?
Do you have a right to working indoor plumbing, and as such a right to force plumbers to keep your plumbing in good repair? Nothing has proven to benefit the health of people than modern plumbing. Would you accept the idea that the government can decree by law a plumber must fix toilets and accept payment for repairs less than the cost of doing the repair? Plumbers are tradesmen; their work has lead to longer lives and less disease than the work of doctors. Doctors are just that, highly trained individuals, a.k.a. tradesmen, in the healing trade.
Why are Democrats calling for people in certain trades to be enslaved by government? The bigger question is why is America and the press accepting of totalitarianism, that the Democrats so embolden, can openly call for enslaving people who are in certain trades and the press and the people don’t even notice?
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Public Schools are Cruel and Unusual.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/29/2013
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Bureaucrats suspended a little boy for taking bites out of a pop tart in such a way that it was shaped like a gun.
Bureaucrats suspended a 7-year boy for pretending to throw a non-existent grenade on the playground.
Bureaucrats suspended a 6-year old boy in Maryland for making a gun shape with his finger.
Bureaucrats busted a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles.
A teacher in Rhode Island caught an 8-year old boy with some plastic toy army men.
Bureaucrats evacuated a school because an 11-year old boy made a motion detector for his science experiment.
Bureaucrats in Florida kicked an 8-year old boy out of school for a year because he had a plastic gun in his backpack.
In Virginia, not only did bureaucrats suspend a 10-year old boy for a toy gun, called the cops and had the kid arrested.
A third-grader got in trouble for having toy army men on his birthday cupcakes.
Two second-graders got suspended for holding pencils like they were guns.
Bureaucrats suspended a kindergartener for having a lego-sized toy gun.
Bureaucrats wanted a deaf child to change his sign-language name because it required him to shape his fingers in a way that resembled a gun.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Natural Born Killers
Two seventh-grade students in Virginia Beach, Va., were handed long-term suspensions Tuesday that will last until the end of the school year for playing with an airsoft gun in one of their front yards while waiting for the school bus. WAVY-TV reports that 13-year-old Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark will face an additional hearing in January to determine if they will be expelled for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because the guns were fired at two others playing in Caraballo’s yard. …Khalid claims he never took the toy gun to the designated bus stop or Larkspur Middle School, according to the report. Two other students who fired guns were also suspended.
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Navy Yard Shooting Proves Gun Laws Work
By Tom Rhodes, 9/24/2013
The Navy Yard shooting last week prove that gun laws are working as designed. You simply don't understand the design. We were again lectured by Obama telling us mere citizens that we need to work harder for tougher gun laws if they want to end a plague of violence in schools, military installations and in certain cities. Of course all overwhelming preponderance of mass shootings and increases in gun violence share one common trait; they occur where there are tougher gun laws.
Obama said, "I have an idea, let's keep doing the same thing over against and expect different results!" While wanting to do the very thing that has proven to increase gun violence; disarm law abiding citizens. Everywhere, in the USA or world, that the average citizen is disarmed results in increased violent crime. When you take away the ability and right of the people to defend themselves, they become easy prey. As the recent Harvard study showed, there is no evidence that increased gun control decreases violent crime.
Washington DC, despite the Heller decision does everything it can to limit and discourage the law abiding members of its society from possessing firearms. Chicago and Detroit do the same. Schools are "gun free zones" as was the Aurora Colorado theater. Both Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard are made "secure" by making sure nobody (even trained soldiers) is armed. In the USA a "Gun Free Zone" is where mass shootings happen. These cities, institutions, and military installations have followed Obama's plan for guns, and they are where gun violence is increasing.
As Obama paraphrased, it is often said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Disarming law abiding citizens has proven, repeatedly, all over the world NOT to lower or diminish violent crime, so more laws to disarm law abiding citizens and expecting less violence is clearly INSANE.
Obama lamented, "We must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work." The problem is that position is observably and provably wrong. It is quite normal and observable that you see an increase in gun violence against innocent people where they are stripped of their means to protect themselves. To criminals and the insane, "Gun Free Zones" are invitations, virtual offers of play grounds where they can fearlessly raise mayhem, death and destruction, in an assured safe environment. Mass murders don't go to the shooting range or gun shows, those places aren't safe environments to engage in mass murder and mayhem.
Obama has proven to be effective and marching toward his clearly stated goal. It has nothing to do with our safety, rather he is working to fundamentally change America, from a place where the people have the means and power to control the government, to a place where the people fear the government, and have no means to do anything about it. He is using emotional appeals based on the escalation of violence, to render the population impotent before the government which has militarized it police and will have a monopoly on force.
We know how to make places and people more secure. Look at the President; he is made secure by having lots of armed men surrounding him. This is because we know criminals won't follow the law, so the Secret Service is armed and ready. The way to make our military bases, Navy Yards, and other places more secure is to have people armed in those places. The military is full of people who are trained with arms, let them carry at every job they do. It a soldier or other military member can't be trusted with a firearm then they shouldn't be in the military. If every member of the military was armed at all times, the Navy Yard would not have been attacked, period. Knowing that every other military person was armed would also prevent a criminal in the military from going Postal (no guns allowed in post office, hence a safe environment for criminally insane to shoot up the place).
The Navy Yard Shooter was criminally insane, his supervisors knew it, the Navy Yard was warned about him by Rhode Island police, our government knew it, yet he wasn't even prosecuted for gun crimes previously. It looks as though the government, who could have legally done something about him, choose instead to leave a man they knew was bonkers, had violent tendencies, purchase a gun. The actions of the Government seem to indicate a desire to leave the violent criminally insane on the streets so that they can use their predictable violent acts as impetus to disarm the entire population.
Think about it. Use the violent actions of the criminally insane as justification to disarm everybody. It would be cruel and inhuman to lock up the insane, and we can't label them insane, so Political Correctness dictates that the actions of the criminally insane justify disarming everybody.
Obama concluded his speech with another fallacy, "No other advanced nation endures this kind of violence. None. What's different in America is it's easy to get your hands on a gun." Simply, ignoring the fact that back when you could mail order a machine gun without any government interference we were a less violent nation; and ignoring the fact that over the past 20 years we've increased the number of guns in private hands and decreased violent crime (including murder) except in cities with massive restrictions on private gun ownership.
American history it is clear, the government creates laws and implements policies which have the "unintended" consequence of increasing violence, then statists in government use the increase in violence as an excuse to further restrict the liberties of the masses. Install Prohibition, resultant black market and gang violence results in abandoning the Second Amendment and making machine guns virtually illegal. Rather than mind our own business the Government bombs and restricts Islamic nations, we then see an increase in Islamic terrorism (911, Shoe Bomber, Ft. Hood, Boston Marathon Bombing, etc) followed by dumping the Fourth Amendment for our own "safety." The pattern is clear.
Switzerland and Israel have three things in common, more guns per capita than the USA, no gun free zones, and very little gun violence. Obama and the other statist ruling elite in Washington are not insane; they know doing the same thing over and over will provide the same results. Thus the predictable results of their actions result in rare but horrific events; they then use those rare horrific events to provide them with emotional justification for more state power. The goal of Obama, (and the Republicans and Democrats) is not that of the state purpose of our government, which was established to protect the right to life, liberty, and property of all the people equally, their goal is to fundamentally change America by concentrating power with the ruling elite. Making America a place where the government need not fear the people, but the people fear the government. Tyranny is the goal, and it's a good goal, if your part of the ruling elite.
The Navy Yard shooting last week prove that gun laws are working as designed. You simply don't understand the design. We were again lectured by Obama telling us mere citizens that we need to work harder for tougher gun laws if they want to end a plague of violence in schools, military installations and in certain cities. Of course all overwhelming preponderance of mass shootings and increases in gun violence share one common trait; they occur where there are tougher gun laws.
Obama said, "I have an idea, let's keep doing the same thing over against and expect different results!" While wanting to do the very thing that has proven to increase gun violence; disarm law abiding citizens. Everywhere, in the USA or world, that the average citizen is disarmed results in increased violent crime. When you take away the ability and right of the people to defend themselves, they become easy prey. As the recent Harvard study showed, there is no evidence that increased gun control decreases violent crime.
Washington DC, despite the Heller decision does everything it can to limit and discourage the law abiding members of its society from possessing firearms. Chicago and Detroit do the same. Schools are "gun free zones" as was the Aurora Colorado theater. Both Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard are made "secure" by making sure nobody (even trained soldiers) is armed. In the USA a "Gun Free Zone" is where mass shootings happen. These cities, institutions, and military installations have followed Obama's plan for guns, and they are where gun violence is increasing.
As Obama paraphrased, it is often said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Disarming law abiding citizens has proven, repeatedly, all over the world NOT to lower or diminish violent crime, so more laws to disarm law abiding citizens and expecting less violence is clearly INSANE.
Obama lamented, "We must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work." The problem is that position is observably and provably wrong. It is quite normal and observable that you see an increase in gun violence against innocent people where they are stripped of their means to protect themselves. To criminals and the insane, "Gun Free Zones" are invitations, virtual offers of play grounds where they can fearlessly raise mayhem, death and destruction, in an assured safe environment. Mass murders don't go to the shooting range or gun shows, those places aren't safe environments to engage in mass murder and mayhem.
Obama has proven to be effective and marching toward his clearly stated goal. It has nothing to do with our safety, rather he is working to fundamentally change America, from a place where the people have the means and power to control the government, to a place where the people fear the government, and have no means to do anything about it. He is using emotional appeals based on the escalation of violence, to render the population impotent before the government which has militarized it police and will have a monopoly on force.
We know how to make places and people more secure. Look at the President; he is made secure by having lots of armed men surrounding him. This is because we know criminals won't follow the law, so the Secret Service is armed and ready. The way to make our military bases, Navy Yards, and other places more secure is to have people armed in those places. The military is full of people who are trained with arms, let them carry at every job they do. It a soldier or other military member can't be trusted with a firearm then they shouldn't be in the military. If every member of the military was armed at all times, the Navy Yard would not have been attacked, period. Knowing that every other military person was armed would also prevent a criminal in the military from going Postal (no guns allowed in post office, hence a safe environment for criminally insane to shoot up the place).
The Navy Yard Shooter was criminally insane, his supervisors knew it, the Navy Yard was warned about him by Rhode Island police, our government knew it, yet he wasn't even prosecuted for gun crimes previously. It looks as though the government, who could have legally done something about him, choose instead to leave a man they knew was bonkers, had violent tendencies, purchase a gun. The actions of the Government seem to indicate a desire to leave the violent criminally insane on the streets so that they can use their predictable violent acts as impetus to disarm the entire population.
Think about it. Use the violent actions of the criminally insane as justification to disarm everybody. It would be cruel and inhuman to lock up the insane, and we can't label them insane, so Political Correctness dictates that the actions of the criminally insane justify disarming everybody.
Obama concluded his speech with another fallacy, "No other advanced nation endures this kind of violence. None. What's different in America is it's easy to get your hands on a gun." Simply, ignoring the fact that back when you could mail order a machine gun without any government interference we were a less violent nation; and ignoring the fact that over the past 20 years we've increased the number of guns in private hands and decreased violent crime (including murder) except in cities with massive restrictions on private gun ownership.
American history it is clear, the government creates laws and implements policies which have the "unintended" consequence of increasing violence, then statists in government use the increase in violence as an excuse to further restrict the liberties of the masses. Install Prohibition, resultant black market and gang violence results in abandoning the Second Amendment and making machine guns virtually illegal. Rather than mind our own business the Government bombs and restricts Islamic nations, we then see an increase in Islamic terrorism (911, Shoe Bomber, Ft. Hood, Boston Marathon Bombing, etc) followed by dumping the Fourth Amendment for our own "safety." The pattern is clear.
Switzerland and Israel have three things in common, more guns per capita than the USA, no gun free zones, and very little gun violence. Obama and the other statist ruling elite in Washington are not insane; they know doing the same thing over and over will provide the same results. Thus the predictable results of their actions result in rare but horrific events; they then use those rare horrific events to provide them with emotional justification for more state power. The goal of Obama, (and the Republicans and Democrats) is not that of the state purpose of our government, which was established to protect the right to life, liberty, and property of all the people equally, their goal is to fundamentally change America by concentrating power with the ruling elite. Making America a place where the government need not fear the people, but the people fear the government. Tyranny is the goal, and it's a good goal, if your part of the ruling elite.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Basis of the Libertarian World View
By Tom Rhodes, 9/16/2013
I have a world view, you have a world view, everybody has a world view. As Libertarians we rightly attack and denounce the Left-Right flat line view of politics,. (see world's smallest political quiz), because it's a false world view. Everybody's world view is not just political but it is based on our beliefs about the nature of man, where he came from; what's his value; is he inherently good, bad, or something else? Everyone's world view is what forms the foundation for what they believe about a host of worldview issues: ethics, politics, economics and more.
One of our founding fathers, William Penn, expressed his world view of society succinctly, saying;
If you work under the singular belief that man is inherently good, such belief probably leads you to a underlying resentment for the institutions are responsible for evil. Since man isn't to blame, the rational conclusion is moral relativism, and outside influences like corporations, or economic status, or "the man" are the impudence for inherently good people to do bad things. This denies the clear evidence history has shown us, as we saw in the recent random murder in by a young man who was "bored." People are not inherently good, they are sinners.
If you work under the singular belief that man is inherently bad, such belief probably leads you to a underlying hatred for individual liberty, as bad people without restrictions are responsible for evil. Since all men are evil, the rational conclusion is usually totalitarian control to protect people from their evil tendencies. This denies the clear evidence history has shown us as we see in not only the small random acts of kindness, but in such institutions as St. Jude's Research hospital, that cares for children with cancer and never sends a bill, or the billions of dollars and hours we donate to charities all around us; People are not inherently evil, they are made in God's Image, and he is good.
Christianity, in the "age of enlightenment," lead our forefathers to a clear world view that resulted in both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, thus creating a divided government because they understood that although men cannot be trusted to govern themselves they must be trusted to govern themselves. So a divided government to dilute the evil any man may do and emphasize the good we can all do. What they believed and what it has been proven fact is that that freedom is critical to human existence. The number of quotes from Washington, Adams, etc made it clear that they believed that true freedom is only found in living by God's moral code.
The world view of Society sways from one extreme (anarchy) to another (totalitarianism), all based on believing first man is good, then man is evil, struggling to understand why nothing works. This is one of the reasons that we in the USA are so divided on fundamental issues of economics and politics and even war. We are divided because we are so fundamentally confused about the nature of man. Our forefathers discovered one thing that has proven to work, the old story that the World rejects is that Man was created in God's image, were pronounced good, but committed evil acts (sinned) and fell from grace. Like Adam and Eve, created in God's image all mankind has eternal worth, but like Adam and Eve mankind is inherently flawed. This understanding with the understanding that man can find redemption is the world view that lead to the USA, an a world view that lead to more people living in relative luxury and wealth, where even the poor have an obesity problem, than any world view ever.
William Penn's world view is why he is "the first great hero of American liberty. During the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics, Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary which protected freedom of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution which limited the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and guaranteed many fundamental liberties.
For the first time in modem history, a large society offered equal rights to people of different races and religions. Penn's dramatic example caused quite a stir in Europe. The French philosopher Voltaire, a champion of religious toleration, offered lavish praise. "William Penn might, with reason, boast of having brought down upon earth the Golden Age, which in all probability, never had any real existence but in his dominions.'"**
Today it can easily be argued that Ron Paul is the most pronounced representative of libertarianism. He is also an openly Christian man. Say what you want, but libertarian ideas and thought from William Penn to Ron Paul, are based on a Christian World View. Today we are seeing the collapse of a Christian World View, and the truth of John Adams observation, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." ~ Noah Webster
"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people." ~ George Washington
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." ~ Samuel Adams
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he introduces confusion and disorder into society thus where licentiousness begins, liberty ends." ~ Samuel West
"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence." ~ Alexander Hamilton
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." ~ James Madison
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." ~ Patrick Henry
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." ~ John Adams
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." ~ Fisher Ames
"The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals." Samuel Adams
"... the manners of the people in general are of the utmost moment to the stability of any civil society. When the body of a people are altogether corrupt in their manners, the government is ripe for dissolution. So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue." ~ John Witherspoon
"Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them in great measure the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex and smooth, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they support them, or they totally destroy them." ~ Edmund Burke
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." ~ Edmund Burke
Over 100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt told us what would happen when we embraced the idea that all religions and cultures were equal. "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
William Penn's now immortal words are coming true, "When men are not governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants."
I have a world view, you have a world view, everybody has a world view. As Libertarians we rightly attack and denounce the Left-Right flat line view of politics,. (see world's smallest political quiz), because it's a false world view. Everybody's world view is not just political but it is based on our beliefs about the nature of man, where he came from; what's his value; is he inherently good, bad, or something else? Everyone's world view is what forms the foundation for what they believe about a host of worldview issues: ethics, politics, economics and more.
One of our founding fathers, William Penn, expressed his world view of society succinctly, saying;
"The public has been deluded about the material aims of a few and the very existence of the hidden rulers who sit at the very pinnacle of power and see themselves as lords of this planet...
If the men in leadership positions in the world do not know the objective of life then they are not capable of administering a peaceful society? If however they do know, then what we see happening in the world is the deliberate attempt to undermine the primary objective of life. The missing dimension in world politics is the spiritual dimension. The problems of life cannot be solved by material means. Modern civilization is missing the point of life. Human life is meant for understanding spiritual values. Real knowledge is knowing yourself, what you are, what God is...
When men are not governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants."
If you work under the singular belief that man is inherently good, such belief probably leads you to a underlying resentment for the institutions are responsible for evil. Since man isn't to blame, the rational conclusion is moral relativism, and outside influences like corporations, or economic status, or "the man" are the impudence for inherently good people to do bad things. This denies the clear evidence history has shown us, as we saw in the recent random murder in by a young man who was "bored." People are not inherently good, they are sinners.
If you work under the singular belief that man is inherently bad, such belief probably leads you to a underlying hatred for individual liberty, as bad people without restrictions are responsible for evil. Since all men are evil, the rational conclusion is usually totalitarian control to protect people from their evil tendencies. This denies the clear evidence history has shown us as we see in not only the small random acts of kindness, but in such institutions as St. Jude's Research hospital, that cares for children with cancer and never sends a bill, or the billions of dollars and hours we donate to charities all around us; People are not inherently evil, they are made in God's Image, and he is good.
Christianity, in the "age of enlightenment," lead our forefathers to a clear world view that resulted in both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, thus creating a divided government because they understood that although men cannot be trusted to govern themselves they must be trusted to govern themselves. So a divided government to dilute the evil any man may do and emphasize the good we can all do. What they believed and what it has been proven fact is that that freedom is critical to human existence. The number of quotes from Washington, Adams, etc made it clear that they believed that true freedom is only found in living by God's moral code.
The world view of Society sways from one extreme (anarchy) to another (totalitarianism), all based on believing first man is good, then man is evil, struggling to understand why nothing works. This is one of the reasons that we in the USA are so divided on fundamental issues of economics and politics and even war. We are divided because we are so fundamentally confused about the nature of man. Our forefathers discovered one thing that has proven to work, the old story that the World rejects is that Man was created in God's image, were pronounced good, but committed evil acts (sinned) and fell from grace. Like Adam and Eve, created in God's image all mankind has eternal worth, but like Adam and Eve mankind is inherently flawed. This understanding with the understanding that man can find redemption is the world view that lead to the USA, an a world view that lead to more people living in relative luxury and wealth, where even the poor have an obesity problem, than any world view ever.
William Penn's world view is why he is "the first great hero of American liberty. During the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics, Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary which protected freedom of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution which limited the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and guaranteed many fundamental liberties.
For the first time in modem history, a large society offered equal rights to people of different races and religions. Penn's dramatic example caused quite a stir in Europe. The French philosopher Voltaire, a champion of religious toleration, offered lavish praise. "William Penn might, with reason, boast of having brought down upon earth the Golden Age, which in all probability, never had any real existence but in his dominions.'"**
Today it can easily be argued that Ron Paul is the most pronounced representative of libertarianism. He is also an openly Christian man. Say what you want, but libertarian ideas and thought from William Penn to Ron Paul, are based on a Christian World View. Today we are seeing the collapse of a Christian World View, and the truth of John Adams observation, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." ~ Noah Webster
"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people." ~ George Washington
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." ~ Samuel Adams
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he introduces confusion and disorder into society thus where licentiousness begins, liberty ends." ~ Samuel West
"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence." ~ Alexander Hamilton
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." ~ James Madison
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." ~ Patrick Henry
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." ~ John Adams
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers." ~ Fisher Ames
"The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals." Samuel Adams
"... the manners of the people in general are of the utmost moment to the stability of any civil society. When the body of a people are altogether corrupt in their manners, the government is ripe for dissolution. So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue." ~ John Witherspoon
"Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them in great measure the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex and smooth, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they support them, or they totally destroy them." ~ Edmund Burke
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." ~ Edmund Burke
Over 100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt told us what would happen when we embraced the idea that all religions and cultures were equal. "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." ~ Theodore Roosevelt
William Penn's now immortal words are coming true, "When men are not governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants."
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Fitting News for 9/11
By Tom Rhodes 9/11/2013
Twelve years ago today thousands of Americans were killed by Islamists, it was just the excuse our government needed to stomp out the Bill of Rights. No it wasn't a false flag conspiracy by the some secret society of ruling elite to prime the people of the USA to allow massive restrictions on their liberty. But it provided an excuse for the Patriot Act which resulted in the blatant abuse of our rights as described in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and even Third Amendments to our constitution. All these rights restrict the federal government; none of them grant the government the authority to ignore them in case of Terrorism or other compelling government interest.
But today we wake up to the fact that in the USA it is still true that the ruling elite govern at the consent of the people. In Colorado two of the ruling elite were clearly told, "You Don't Have Our Consent," and fired. The issue was fundamental, State Sen. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, rejected the will of the citizens of Colorado and pushed through anti-Second Amendment laws in Colorado that the people Colorado made clear they didn't want. For that they were fired. We The People have sent a loud and clear message. ENOUGH!! We do not consent!
Since 9/11 the people of the united states have been on a spending spree, we have been arming ourselves. 9/11 made things clear, the world is dangerous and our government cannot protect us all the time in every instance. We see what massive immigration has and is doing to Europe. We see governments either unable or inept to protect average citizens from the effects of allowing massive numbers of people to immigrate from third world nations. We have and are taking responsibility for our own security and arming ourselves. The result is that outside of our most violent inner cities with severe restrictions on gun ownership, violent crime in the USA has diminished. The truth be told we are finding that Heinlein was right and in actuality "An armed society is a polite society."
The actions of our government have also made one other thing perfectly clear. Our government fears We the People, more than it does radical Muslim terrorists. For the very reasons our military chooses to use the AR platform, We the People have purchased AR's in prodigious volumes. Millions of private citizens own an AR type rifle for a huge number of reasons; the AR15 and its variants are today's Musket. Although so few have been used in any type of crime that they are statistically insignificant, this is the type of weapon the ruling elite want restricted. Why??? Look at the damage caused and resources it took government forces in California to stop one man armed with an AR who targeted the police. They had SWAT teams with military grade weapons and tactics, they had helicopters, and they had numbers. Still it took days and disproportionate casualties to stop one determined man. Consider how many people own AR's, if a small number of them, shall we say 3%, chose to take up arms against law enforcement; it could and would cripple the nations law enforcement agencies. The ruling elite want more restrictive gun control because they fear the people; as well they should and with good reason.
Today on 9/11 we heard the news and so did the ruling elite. We the People will not be disarmed. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing. In Sen. Angela Giron's district, Pueblo Colorado, 43% of the registered voters are Democrats and only 23% Republicans, yet 57% voted to recall her. A massive amounts of money from outside Colorado was spent, the overwhelming majority of that money was spent to stop and fight the recall of Morse and Giron. The results of the recall scare the crap out of the Ruling Elite.
The news on this 12 anniversary of 9/11 gives us hope that the ideas which formed this nation still exist and stand strong. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The news today is a clear message that the We the People will not tolerate tyranny.
Twelve years ago today thousands of Americans were killed by Islamists, it was just the excuse our government needed to stomp out the Bill of Rights. No it wasn't a false flag conspiracy by the some secret society of ruling elite to prime the people of the USA to allow massive restrictions on their liberty. But it provided an excuse for the Patriot Act which resulted in the blatant abuse of our rights as described in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and even Third Amendments to our constitution. All these rights restrict the federal government; none of them grant the government the authority to ignore them in case of Terrorism or other compelling government interest.
But today we wake up to the fact that in the USA it is still true that the ruling elite govern at the consent of the people. In Colorado two of the ruling elite were clearly told, "You Don't Have Our Consent," and fired. The issue was fundamental, State Sen. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, rejected the will of the citizens of Colorado and pushed through anti-Second Amendment laws in Colorado that the people Colorado made clear they didn't want. For that they were fired. We The People have sent a loud and clear message. ENOUGH!! We do not consent!
Since 9/11 the people of the united states have been on a spending spree, we have been arming ourselves. 9/11 made things clear, the world is dangerous and our government cannot protect us all the time in every instance. We see what massive immigration has and is doing to Europe. We see governments either unable or inept to protect average citizens from the effects of allowing massive numbers of people to immigrate from third world nations. We have and are taking responsibility for our own security and arming ourselves. The result is that outside of our most violent inner cities with severe restrictions on gun ownership, violent crime in the USA has diminished. The truth be told we are finding that Heinlein was right and in actuality "An armed society is a polite society."
The actions of our government have also made one other thing perfectly clear. Our government fears We the People, more than it does radical Muslim terrorists. For the very reasons our military chooses to use the AR platform, We the People have purchased AR's in prodigious volumes. Millions of private citizens own an AR type rifle for a huge number of reasons; the AR15 and its variants are today's Musket. Although so few have been used in any type of crime that they are statistically insignificant, this is the type of weapon the ruling elite want restricted. Why??? Look at the damage caused and resources it took government forces in California to stop one man armed with an AR who targeted the police. They had SWAT teams with military grade weapons and tactics, they had helicopters, and they had numbers. Still it took days and disproportionate casualties to stop one determined man. Consider how many people own AR's, if a small number of them, shall we say 3%, chose to take up arms against law enforcement; it could and would cripple the nations law enforcement agencies. The ruling elite want more restrictive gun control because they fear the people; as well they should and with good reason.
Today on 9/11 we heard the news and so did the ruling elite. We the People will not be disarmed. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing. In Sen. Angela Giron's district, Pueblo Colorado, 43% of the registered voters are Democrats and only 23% Republicans, yet 57% voted to recall her. A massive amounts of money from outside Colorado was spent, the overwhelming majority of that money was spent to stop and fight the recall of Morse and Giron. The results of the recall scare the crap out of the Ruling Elite.
The news on this 12 anniversary of 9/11 gives us hope that the ideas which formed this nation still exist and stand strong. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The news today is a clear message that the We the People will not tolerate tyranny.
Monday, August 26, 2013
USA – Now a Statist Nation
By Tom Rhodes, 8/26/2013
Question: What does a modern technological tyrannical police state look like?
Answer: USA circa 2013
Does that answer seem extreme? Hardly, when you consider the facts. The overflow of news about government abuse of individual rights and privacy is so great it cannot be contained. Among the news that the government wished remained secret is the fact that secret courts found the NSA in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge John Bates wrote in his Oct. 3, 2011, opinion, “For the first time, the government has now advised the court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.” The fact is that NSA collects email not just of foreign correspondence but of domestic nature as well.
There were zero arrests, and zero accountability of the NSA. It took a FISA (freedom of information act) request and over a year of litigation to release the heavily redacted 2011 secret court ruling. The WSJ reports that NSA captures and has access to 75% or more of all internet traffic in the USA. Like it or not the 4th amendment is dead.
Some say that the government is only looking for terrorists, and won’t/doesn’t abuse the information they collect. If you say that then you missed the August 1, 2013 story where in the kitchen a woman was looking up pressure cookers and recipes while in the other room her husband was looking up backpacks for the kids, the police show up wanting to search the place to make sure they weren’t making bombs. Finding no evidence they left after a 45 min search they left. The agents reportedly told the husband "that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing."
Your internet searches, and browsing history, are known by the government - Period. Ignoring the constitution they monitor everybody. You can use things like DuckDuckGo.com or StartPage.com which don’t store the ISP or other information on people doing searches, you can use TOR, and you can use encrypted mail, pay for your purchases with cash, avoid giving your name to retailers, etc. But ..... if you do these things the government assumes probable cause that you are doing something illegal.
Do you understand that??? If you take steps to protect your Fourth Amendment Right to be secure in you person, property, and effects (especially electronic effects), then you have given the government probable cause to search your person, property, and effects. Talk about circular reasoning.
Today, in the USA, the government can and will show up at your door with guns based on your use of the internet. Without probable cause or even reasonable suspension of any particular crime or item or communication they are searching your effects. The secret court to protect your rights is toothless, and even when it finds the government violating constitutional rights holds nobody responsible.
Tyranny in the USA is here, it’s happened incrementally like boiling the proverbial frog. Little by little statism has overtaken our formerly free nation. It is becoming evident that the two factions of the Statist Federal Government, Republican and Democrat Parties, are not and will not defend the constitution, and ever seek more power for an ever increasing statist government. After the Snowden leaks, the politicians who said they would do something, investigate, etc. from both sides of the aisle have grown silent, and are actually doing nothing to protect your Constitutional Rights.
Obama as a senator, often made bold statements condemning the violation of individual rights, yet after attaining the White House has continued, extended and increased such violations. His actions have been no different than Bush’s. Of course as a senator there was much he didn’t know that after becoming President he learned that affected his positions. That or his change proves the axiom that “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It matters not; Protecting the safety of the people has long been the excuse tyrants use to curb individual liberty and increase the power of the state.
There cannot be both absolute safety and absolute liberty. Our statist government is choosing safety over liberty. It is not giving the people a choice. The government not works under the assumption that it’s compelling interest supersedes individual liberty, and the constitutional limits placed on the government must be discarded.
Statism is defined as the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government. So the answer to the question, “What does a modern technological tyrannical police state look like?” is Statist. The results of both the Democrats and Republicans actions is clear, they are bringing the USA to become a totalitarian statist nation; where the individual is servant to the state not the other way around.
If you want liberty, what are you doing to take it back, as you no longer have it? The question is do you want security of liberty?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Question: What does a modern technological tyrannical police state look like?
Answer: USA circa 2013
Does that answer seem extreme? Hardly, when you consider the facts. The overflow of news about government abuse of individual rights and privacy is so great it cannot be contained. Among the news that the government wished remained secret is the fact that secret courts found the NSA in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge John Bates wrote in his Oct. 3, 2011, opinion, “For the first time, the government has now advised the court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.” The fact is that NSA collects email not just of foreign correspondence but of domestic nature as well.
There were zero arrests, and zero accountability of the NSA. It took a FISA (freedom of information act) request and over a year of litigation to release the heavily redacted 2011 secret court ruling. The WSJ reports that NSA captures and has access to 75% or more of all internet traffic in the USA. Like it or not the 4th amendment is dead.
Some say that the government is only looking for terrorists, and won’t/doesn’t abuse the information they collect. If you say that then you missed the August 1, 2013 story where in the kitchen a woman was looking up pressure cookers and recipes while in the other room her husband was looking up backpacks for the kids, the police show up wanting to search the place to make sure they weren’t making bombs. Finding no evidence they left after a 45 min search they left. The agents reportedly told the husband "that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing."
Your internet searches, and browsing history, are known by the government - Period. Ignoring the constitution they monitor everybody. You can use things like DuckDuckGo.com or StartPage.com which don’t store the ISP or other information on people doing searches, you can use TOR, and you can use encrypted mail, pay for your purchases with cash, avoid giving your name to retailers, etc. But ..... if you do these things the government assumes probable cause that you are doing something illegal.
Do you understand that??? If you take steps to protect your Fourth Amendment Right to be secure in you person, property, and effects (especially electronic effects), then you have given the government probable cause to search your person, property, and effects. Talk about circular reasoning.
Today, in the USA, the government can and will show up at your door with guns based on your use of the internet. Without probable cause or even reasonable suspension of any particular crime or item or communication they are searching your effects. The secret court to protect your rights is toothless, and even when it finds the government violating constitutional rights holds nobody responsible.
Tyranny in the USA is here, it’s happened incrementally like boiling the proverbial frog. Little by little statism has overtaken our formerly free nation. It is becoming evident that the two factions of the Statist Federal Government, Republican and Democrat Parties, are not and will not defend the constitution, and ever seek more power for an ever increasing statist government. After the Snowden leaks, the politicians who said they would do something, investigate, etc. from both sides of the aisle have grown silent, and are actually doing nothing to protect your Constitutional Rights.
Obama as a senator, often made bold statements condemning the violation of individual rights, yet after attaining the White House has continued, extended and increased such violations. His actions have been no different than Bush’s. Of course as a senator there was much he didn’t know that after becoming President he learned that affected his positions. That or his change proves the axiom that “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It matters not; Protecting the safety of the people has long been the excuse tyrants use to curb individual liberty and increase the power of the state.
There cannot be both absolute safety and absolute liberty. Our statist government is choosing safety over liberty. It is not giving the people a choice. The government not works under the assumption that it’s compelling interest supersedes individual liberty, and the constitutional limits placed on the government must be discarded.
Statism is defined as the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government. So the answer to the question, “What does a modern technological tyrannical police state look like?” is Statist. The results of both the Democrats and Republicans actions is clear, they are bringing the USA to become a totalitarian statist nation; where the individual is servant to the state not the other way around.
If you want liberty, what are you doing to take it back, as you no longer have it? The question is do you want security of liberty?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
A Large and Sophisticated Banana Republic
Or Why Do We Even Have a Congress Anymore?
By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2013
The constitution is dead, our government willfully ignores it and openly defies the clear separation of powers and limits to the Federal Government. We live in a banana republic. The only difference between the USA and some third world despotic hellhole is that our banana republic is large and sophisticated mired in bureaucracy that has shadows of former lawfulness.
The wisdom of our forefathers was a result of viewing and analyzing history dialectically terminating in the idea that government is a necessary evil, and that because it is made of men, and men are corrupted by power, the power of government should be divided. Hence a system with checks and balances where those who created laws didn't have the power to enforce them nor judge them, those who enforced the law could not create the law nor judge the law, and those who judge have no authority to create nor enforce the law. When coupled with the idea and reality of the "rule of law" which implies and demands that those in power are not exempt from the law and must live by the laws they create, enforce and judge; he Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law produced the Checks and Balances which our government was famous. Key word WAS.
The Constitution is clear, only Congress, not the President, may create law (regulations are law). Why do we bother having a congress if the President can dictate through executive order or regulatory agency, laws. Why should any citizen have confidence in the law created by their duly elected representative? Congress debates, compromises with all representatives to create law that represents the desires of the electorate, then the president says "screw the law this is what we're doing." That undermines all law. When Obama declares "I'm not going to wait for Congress!" he is boldly claiming to be a dictator, and regardless of the will of the people will dictate the law.
This is a pattern of Che' Obama, who routinely ignores with impudence both Congress and the Judiciary. A very recent example is total disregard for the law, the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary happened July of this year when The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the federal appeals courts in D.C. and Philadelphia in ruling President Obama's National Labor Relations Board recess appointments, who by law must be approved by Congress, were unconstitutional. Che' Obama has to date simply ignored the rulings his unlawfully appointed henchmen still run the NLRB.
Why have a body to create law, if the result can be twisted and ignored at a whim. What good will any law be created by congress if the president can unilaterally alter what he signs. To pass Obamacare, provisions were included that made government employees subject to the same rules and regulations mere citizens; on Aug. 14, 2013 Che' Obama dictated to his minions to delay the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority; Thus negating the law with neither due process nor legislation, a clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.
The issue of the end of the Rule of Law, and the USA's decent into Banana Republic status has even been noticed by more main stream media. Investor's Business Daily published what they call "just a small sampling" of a "Lengthy Legacy of Lawlessness" by Che' Obama and the federal government including:
February 3, 2010: Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama administration in contempt for re-imposing an offshore drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
March 1, 2011: Attorney General Holder lied to Congress, saying "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department." Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by DOJ attorneys.
May 3, 2011: When asked when he first heard of Operation Fast and Furious, Attorney General Eric Holder falsely testified, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." Head of the National Drug Intelligence Center Michael Walther told Holder about Fast and Furious in a July 2010 memo. Subsequent revelations showed he knew all along.
March 27, 2012: EPA issued final rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions on electric utilities that require power plants to use non-existing carbon capture-and-control technology to meet new emission standards, in defiance of the Congress' rejection of cap-and-trade legislation.
April 23, 2012: The administration postponed Medicare Advantage cuts by calling them a "demonstration project" and used funds not approved by Congress to delay effects of those cuts before the election.
June 15, 2012: The Obama administration announced it will stop deporting illegal immigrants under the age of 30 in a "deferred action" policy to circumvent immigration laws. This comes after Congress rejected a similar measure about a year ago. Since then, more than 500,000 illegals have received the deferment and only 20,000 have been rejected. As for the law-abiding applicants who have been waiting in line, well, that's Obama's idea of "lawfulness." The constitution is extremely clear and specifically grants Congress, not the president, the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", Che' Obama has made it clear that not only is he usurping Congress's power but throwing out the idea of a "uniform Rule of Naturalization;
May 10, 2013: The IRS revealed it targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status beginning in March 2010, a direct targeting of political opponents through the tax laws. It's one of the crimes that led Congress to impeach President Nixon.
May 13, 2013: AP reported the DOJ secretly collected phone records of AP reporters and editors, a move completely outside the realm of law. Even the AP - which up until then had been pretty submissive to the Obama agenda - was appalled by the breach.
May 20, 2013: A Washington Post article revealed that Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the DOJ, which subpoenaed his phone records and emails in direct contravention of the First Amendment under the pretense of a leak investigation.
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is "unconstitutional" and that "the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance." Instead of complying with the ruling, Holder filed suit to order Texas to submit to preclearance, in defiance of Congress' authority to legislate and the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
July 1, 2013: The Obama administration unilaterally decided to delay the employer mandate provision of ObamaCare for a year, which is to provide information to the feds about the extent of an applicant's insurance. Never mind that the law states the mandate must go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014 - they are now relying on the "honor system" from applicants to determine if they are qualified for subsidies. drilling moratorium that was struck down by the courts.
The noise and commotion of our congress is now irrelevant and unnecessary as the Che' Obama has thrown off even the suggestion that we actually live in a democratic republic. The evidence is clear, Che' Obama is the despotic ruler of the world's largest and most sophisticated banana republic.
By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2013
The constitution is dead, our government willfully ignores it and openly defies the clear separation of powers and limits to the Federal Government. We live in a banana republic. The only difference between the USA and some third world despotic hellhole is that our banana republic is large and sophisticated mired in bureaucracy that has shadows of former lawfulness.
The wisdom of our forefathers was a result of viewing and analyzing history dialectically terminating in the idea that government is a necessary evil, and that because it is made of men, and men are corrupted by power, the power of government should be divided. Hence a system with checks and balances where those who created laws didn't have the power to enforce them nor judge them, those who enforced the law could not create the law nor judge the law, and those who judge have no authority to create nor enforce the law. When coupled with the idea and reality of the "rule of law" which implies and demands that those in power are not exempt from the law and must live by the laws they create, enforce and judge; he Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law produced the Checks and Balances which our government was famous. Key word WAS.
The Constitution is clear, only Congress, not the President, may create law (regulations are law). Why do we bother having a congress if the President can dictate through executive order or regulatory agency, laws. Why should any citizen have confidence in the law created by their duly elected representative? Congress debates, compromises with all representatives to create law that represents the desires of the electorate, then the president says "screw the law this is what we're doing." That undermines all law. When Obama declares "I'm not going to wait for Congress!" he is boldly claiming to be a dictator, and regardless of the will of the people will dictate the law.
This is a pattern of Che' Obama, who routinely ignores with impudence both Congress and the Judiciary. A very recent example is total disregard for the law, the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary happened July of this year when The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the federal appeals courts in D.C. and Philadelphia in ruling President Obama's National Labor Relations Board recess appointments, who by law must be approved by Congress, were unconstitutional. Che' Obama has to date simply ignored the rulings his unlawfully appointed henchmen still run the NLRB.
Why have a body to create law, if the result can be twisted and ignored at a whim. What good will any law be created by congress if the president can unilaterally alter what he signs. To pass Obamacare, provisions were included that made government employees subject to the same rules and regulations mere citizens; on Aug. 14, 2013 Che' Obama dictated to his minions to delay the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority; Thus negating the law with neither due process nor legislation, a clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.
The issue of the end of the Rule of Law, and the USA's decent into Banana Republic status has even been noticed by more main stream media. Investor's Business Daily published what they call "just a small sampling" of a "Lengthy Legacy of Lawlessness" by Che' Obama and the federal government including:
The noise and commotion of our congress is now irrelevant and unnecessary as the Che' Obama has thrown off even the suggestion that we actually live in a democratic republic. The evidence is clear, Che' Obama is the despotic ruler of the world's largest and most sophisticated banana republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
