On Friday Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii Doubles Down on her SJW narrative declaring The Constitution is an "Alt-Right" document, saying, “If my colleague, the junior Senator from Nebraska, wants to embrace the alt-right’s position by offering this resolution, that is his business,”
Hirono apparently thinks the concept of religious tests for office being unconstitutional is somehow an alt-right position. I guess the Founders were alt-right characters also. I mean, it’s only printed out in completely unambiguous terms right in the Constitution.
Article VI of the constitution clearly states "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Confirming Link
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Monday, January 21, 2019
Friday, July 10, 2015
Playing the Trump Card is Entertaining
by Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2015
The silly season of presidential politics is heating up. For political junkies this is entertainment like we haven’t seen in decades. The early leader in GOP polls almost never wins the GOP nomination. Trump right now is destroying the GOP competition, and he’s a definite RINO. The reason he’s ahead is he listened to the people on a very important issue. The ruling oligarchy of Republicans and Democrats, doesn’t want to touch immigration and definitely doesn’t want to do what 2/3rds of America wants; close the border. This may be the single most important issue to the American people that the oligarchs don’t want us to talk about much less do anything about. The establishment ruling elite claim Americans want a path to citizenship for criminal foreign nationals, but the polls say otherwise.
Americans know there are record numbers of people without jobs, they know more criminal foreign nationals in the country depresses labor markets keeping their wages down. They know supply and demand laws work, so if there are a lot more people available to do unskilled or low skilled labor then the wages for that labor will be lower, and will depress the entire labor market. They aren’t anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrants who cross our border through criminal means. They know that criminal foreign nationals, who don’t respect our immigration laws, probably won’t respect our other laws, much less our respect our traditions and culture. There are not jobs Americans won’t do, there are jobs Americans won’t do if they pay less than they can receive for sitting on their ass.
Take home pay for a person working minimum wage is $975 per month after taxes. Because employers are now forced to purchase health insurance for everybody working full time, an employer can hire two people to work 29.9 hours per week cheaper than he can hire one person to work 40 hours per week. Because 59.8 hours of unskilled labor working part time is cheaper than 40 hours of unskilled labor full time, there are no minimum wage job is more than 29.9 hours per week. The reality is a business saves even more because payroll is simpler, accounting is simpler, no insurance paperwork, so the need for a admin person to do all the paperwork is not needed. Some of the unintended consequences of Obamacare and US labor laws.
This means that in reality if your are following the law, a minimum wage worker takes home $850 per month or less. Combine all the benefits available and welfare provides significantly more than $850/month. So American workers are not willing to take jobs that pay less than they receive for not working. Criminal foreign nationals are willing to live 10 people to a crappy 2 room apartment, work for cash under the table, and because they are criminals willing to work under conditions that are not legal. Why would a business pay more for unskilled labor, when even if caught the penalties are less than the amount they save from having to compete for legal labor.
It’s actually worse than that. The fact is at $100 per day for a 10hr day for a day laborer, and you don’t hire the same day laborer more than 5 days, and there are no taxes, just a day labor expense. Give the guy a $100 bill at the end of the day and you’re done, don’t even need to file a 1099, huge amounts of admin paperwork avoided. If they change their name and give you a different SSN you can do that week after week. So an illegal day laborer can take home $2000 per month, the business owner not break any law and it’s cheaper than the business hiring a full time employee and working him 50 hours at minimum wage paying time-and-a-half for OT, the taxes, insurance, and all the other stuff the law requires.
Trump knows this, he’s hired criminal foreign nationals in his past for just that reason. He knows the people are fed up with having to compete with criminals for jobs. The GOP won’t do anything because their donors benefit from cheap criminal labor and low penalties if caught. The Democrats won’t do anything because criminal foreign nationals in exchange for welfare will illegally vote, and vote Democrat, so that they can keep gaming the system. They are criminals, if ignoring immigrations laws is not an issue, so is ignoring voter laws and welfare laws, housing laws, and labor laws.
Trump boldly, unapologetically, directly, and fearlessly, has stood up and said, “Here is where I stand, like it and vote for me, don’t like it don’t vote for me, but this is my stand and what I’ll do.” No political weasel words, but a solid position that just happens to be in agreement with 2/3’s the population. This scares the shit out of the Republicans and Democrats, who want some issues to be ignored so that they can continue to kick the can and not actually do something about the mass invasion of criminal foreign nationals. Americans are finding a man willing to stand on principle refreshing and more trustworthy. Even if they don’t agree with all his positions, many feel that a man with bold, honest, unapologetic, political positions, is worth voting for. I’m pretty sure the bad rug he wears on his head will cost him the election. Good hair wins the female vote, that’s the big reason McCain lost to Obama. Don’t believe me? Look at the hair/looks of presidents since TV got big. Hair and looks won every time.
If Trump can stay on message, and force the others to address the invasion of criminal foreign nationals, and make the other candidates look like weasely political hacks and himself look like a principled man of action, he can win the GOP nomination. Because Trump speaks with a passion, lucidity and a frankness that none of the establishment politicians of the GOP dare articulate, on a subject they do not want there to be real public debate, the Republican mega-donors are scared he might get into the debates. To add to the fat-cats fears, Trump has the money to counter their money. Trump in the debates will be bad for established statist candidates and their sponsors. He will bring issues to the table they don’t want the public addressing, this will be bad for them.
The Democrats are stupid and blind, they believe their own lies and think the public accept the politically correct position, and want to grant amnesty to criminal foreign nationals. So they are trying to group all Republicans as having Trump’s views. This will be a big mistake, as they will be forced to take a vocal stand on immigration. Because a huge part of the population treats immigration as a jobs issue, with record number of people without jobs, and a huge number blaming the lack of jobs on a glut of criminal foreign nationals willing to work for less than legal wages, the Democrat position is the wrong side of the voters’ position. Trump having Democrat positions on other topics, and a clear, firm, bold stance on immigration means he’ll get a large number of democrat votes other GOP members can’t and could win the election.
Although I don’t like is statist positions on a huge number of issues, having a person who know what it takes to succeed and get things done, having learned from both his failures (bankruptcy) and success, now a Billionaire again, might not be bad. He’s clearly not the establishment candidate. It will be fun to watch how the establishment ruling elite destroy him. He will not be allowed to win any more than Ron Paul was allowed to win. The books will be cooked, the media bought off, and lies will be told. But the ruling elite are not going to let him get far.
You got to like a guy, who tells Univision you’re in breach of our contract, you don’t honor our contract and don’t broadcast the Miss USA pageant as agreed, and I’ll sue you for $500Million. The contract doesn’t have a provision to exit if you don’t like what the other guy says. Support for the Rule of Law, a rarity in politics today. Trump is doubling down, not retracting his opinion, and holding Univision to the terms of their Contract. A positive principled position in support of the rule of law, something a libertarian can appreciate. I can’t vote for Trump based on his positions on healthcare, abortion, guns, and, his financial support for Democrats. But I am going to enjoy the chaos he will bring to the elections.
The silly season of presidential politics is heating up. For political junkies this is entertainment like we haven’t seen in decades. The early leader in GOP polls almost never wins the GOP nomination. Trump right now is destroying the GOP competition, and he’s a definite RINO. The reason he’s ahead is he listened to the people on a very important issue. The ruling oligarchy of Republicans and Democrats, doesn’t want to touch immigration and definitely doesn’t want to do what 2/3rds of America wants; close the border. This may be the single most important issue to the American people that the oligarchs don’t want us to talk about much less do anything about. The establishment ruling elite claim Americans want a path to citizenship for criminal foreign nationals, but the polls say otherwise.
Americans know there are record numbers of people without jobs, they know more criminal foreign nationals in the country depresses labor markets keeping their wages down. They know supply and demand laws work, so if there are a lot more people available to do unskilled or low skilled labor then the wages for that labor will be lower, and will depress the entire labor market. They aren’t anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrants who cross our border through criminal means. They know that criminal foreign nationals, who don’t respect our immigration laws, probably won’t respect our other laws, much less our respect our traditions and culture. There are not jobs Americans won’t do, there are jobs Americans won’t do if they pay less than they can receive for sitting on their ass.
Take home pay for a person working minimum wage is $975 per month after taxes. Because employers are now forced to purchase health insurance for everybody working full time, an employer can hire two people to work 29.9 hours per week cheaper than he can hire one person to work 40 hours per week. Because 59.8 hours of unskilled labor working part time is cheaper than 40 hours of unskilled labor full time, there are no minimum wage job is more than 29.9 hours per week. The reality is a business saves even more because payroll is simpler, accounting is simpler, no insurance paperwork, so the need for a admin person to do all the paperwork is not needed. Some of the unintended consequences of Obamacare and US labor laws.
This means that in reality if your are following the law, a minimum wage worker takes home $850 per month or less. Combine all the benefits available and welfare provides significantly more than $850/month. So American workers are not willing to take jobs that pay less than they receive for not working. Criminal foreign nationals are willing to live 10 people to a crappy 2 room apartment, work for cash under the table, and because they are criminals willing to work under conditions that are not legal. Why would a business pay more for unskilled labor, when even if caught the penalties are less than the amount they save from having to compete for legal labor.
It’s actually worse than that. The fact is at $100 per day for a 10hr day for a day laborer, and you don’t hire the same day laborer more than 5 days, and there are no taxes, just a day labor expense. Give the guy a $100 bill at the end of the day and you’re done, don’t even need to file a 1099, huge amounts of admin paperwork avoided. If they change their name and give you a different SSN you can do that week after week. So an illegal day laborer can take home $2000 per month, the business owner not break any law and it’s cheaper than the business hiring a full time employee and working him 50 hours at minimum wage paying time-and-a-half for OT, the taxes, insurance, and all the other stuff the law requires.
Trump knows this, he’s hired criminal foreign nationals in his past for just that reason. He knows the people are fed up with having to compete with criminals for jobs. The GOP won’t do anything because their donors benefit from cheap criminal labor and low penalties if caught. The Democrats won’t do anything because criminal foreign nationals in exchange for welfare will illegally vote, and vote Democrat, so that they can keep gaming the system. They are criminals, if ignoring immigrations laws is not an issue, so is ignoring voter laws and welfare laws, housing laws, and labor laws.
Trump boldly, unapologetically, directly, and fearlessly, has stood up and said, “Here is where I stand, like it and vote for me, don’t like it don’t vote for me, but this is my stand and what I’ll do.” No political weasel words, but a solid position that just happens to be in agreement with 2/3’s the population. This scares the shit out of the Republicans and Democrats, who want some issues to be ignored so that they can continue to kick the can and not actually do something about the mass invasion of criminal foreign nationals. Americans are finding a man willing to stand on principle refreshing and more trustworthy. Even if they don’t agree with all his positions, many feel that a man with bold, honest, unapologetic, political positions, is worth voting for. I’m pretty sure the bad rug he wears on his head will cost him the election. Good hair wins the female vote, that’s the big reason McCain lost to Obama. Don’t believe me? Look at the hair/looks of presidents since TV got big. Hair and looks won every time.
If Trump can stay on message, and force the others to address the invasion of criminal foreign nationals, and make the other candidates look like weasely political hacks and himself look like a principled man of action, he can win the GOP nomination. Because Trump speaks with a passion, lucidity and a frankness that none of the establishment politicians of the GOP dare articulate, on a subject they do not want there to be real public debate, the Republican mega-donors are scared he might get into the debates. To add to the fat-cats fears, Trump has the money to counter their money. Trump in the debates will be bad for established statist candidates and their sponsors. He will bring issues to the table they don’t want the public addressing, this will be bad for them.
The Democrats are stupid and blind, they believe their own lies and think the public accept the politically correct position, and want to grant amnesty to criminal foreign nationals. So they are trying to group all Republicans as having Trump’s views. This will be a big mistake, as they will be forced to take a vocal stand on immigration. Because a huge part of the population treats immigration as a jobs issue, with record number of people without jobs, and a huge number blaming the lack of jobs on a glut of criminal foreign nationals willing to work for less than legal wages, the Democrat position is the wrong side of the voters’ position. Trump having Democrat positions on other topics, and a clear, firm, bold stance on immigration means he’ll get a large number of democrat votes other GOP members can’t and could win the election.
Although I don’t like is statist positions on a huge number of issues, having a person who know what it takes to succeed and get things done, having learned from both his failures (bankruptcy) and success, now a Billionaire again, might not be bad. He’s clearly not the establishment candidate. It will be fun to watch how the establishment ruling elite destroy him. He will not be allowed to win any more than Ron Paul was allowed to win. The books will be cooked, the media bought off, and lies will be told. But the ruling elite are not going to let him get far.
You got to like a guy, who tells Univision you’re in breach of our contract, you don’t honor our contract and don’t broadcast the Miss USA pageant as agreed, and I’ll sue you for $500Million. The contract doesn’t have a provision to exit if you don’t like what the other guy says. Support for the Rule of Law, a rarity in politics today. Trump is doubling down, not retracting his opinion, and holding Univision to the terms of their Contract. A positive principled position in support of the rule of law, something a libertarian can appreciate. I can’t vote for Trump based on his positions on healthcare, abortion, guns, and, his financial support for Democrats. But I am going to enjoy the chaos he will bring to the elections.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Pumpkins and Politicians
By Tom Rhodes, 11/6/2015
Boo! as in Boo Hoo, go cry someplace else. Leftists want to “get the money out of politics.” The fact is we don’t spend shit on politics, and the other fact is the media doesn’t care about it. What they media cares about is making money. Consider the facts. ABC's "World News Tonight" didn't air a single story on the midterm elections from June 11 to October 27, 2014. They did do lot’s of human interest stories. In fact Americans care more about Halloween parties than they do politics.
This year we spent $7,400,000,000 on Halloween, That’s over 7 Billion dollars, as in “B” Billions spent on candy, costumes, and pumpkins. That’s also more than was spent on the midterm elections including the PAC’s and evil corporations spending.
What does this mean. Simple, remember the old adage “Follow the Money.” There isn’t too much money in politics, people simply have different priorities. Corporations, Special Interests, Unions, and those who form PAC’s are interested in politics, the American People are interested in Vampires, Werewolves, Ghosts, Pumpkins, Candy, Parties, and what Taylor Swift is doing. The news covers reflects what people want and where they are willing to spend their money.
More money in history was spent on the midterm elections, but when more money is spent on Halloween than those elections we clearly see where the American People have put their priorities. It’s not in selecting leaders for our country, or having their voice heard. It’s in partying and escapism.
On average as a nation we spent $72 each on Halloween. I challenge ever Libertarian in Florida to forgo Haloween spending next year and send $72 to the LPF. The LPF put’s it’s money where its mouth is, and practices what it preaches. All politics is local, so half your donation will go to your local LP county affiliate. There were over 200 thousand people who voted for the LPF Tuesday, if they spent the same amount on the LPF as they did on Halloween every year, the LPF would have a 1.4 Million dollar annual budget, with that amount of money the LPF could and would win elections and make a difference. That much money would have made a huge difference.
If you are a libertarian and you spent more on Halloween or New Years Eve of St. Patrick’s Day to party and didn’t give to the LPF, you are a hypocrite, you don’t care about Liberty in our Lifetime. Put your money where your mouth is, CLICK HERE give up one night of partying, Halloween or New Years Eve or St. Patrick’s Day and send at least $72 to the LPF. If not You, Who? If not now, When?
You may choose to ignore politics and politicians, but they don’t ignore you. On average you’re spending $3000 per year more on healthcare because you ignored politics and politicians who passed Obamacare and are forcing you to spend more on health care. Not just this year, but every year, skip one of the many days we celebrate and spend that money on helping choose who represents and leads you in government. Or ignore politics and politicians, and party while your freedoms are slowly and methodically devoured by those who do pay attention to politics, and do put their money where their mouth is.
Follow the Money, your money, if you don’t voluntarily spend your money on politics, it’s your choice, what you are saying is that since you would rather buy pumpkins than politicians. OK that’s your choice, but because you would rather voluntarily spend your money that way it doesn’t take away the right of others like, unions, special interests, PAC’s, corporations put their money where their hearts are. You can’t bitch that there is too much money in politics when you spent more on pumpkins.
Boo! as in Boo Hoo, go cry someplace else. Leftists want to “get the money out of politics.” The fact is we don’t spend shit on politics, and the other fact is the media doesn’t care about it. What they media cares about is making money. Consider the facts. ABC's "World News Tonight" didn't air a single story on the midterm elections from June 11 to October 27, 2014. They did do lot’s of human interest stories. In fact Americans care more about Halloween parties than they do politics.
This year we spent $7,400,000,000 on Halloween, That’s over 7 Billion dollars, as in “B” Billions spent on candy, costumes, and pumpkins. That’s also more than was spent on the midterm elections including the PAC’s and evil corporations spending.
What does this mean. Simple, remember the old adage “Follow the Money.” There isn’t too much money in politics, people simply have different priorities. Corporations, Special Interests, Unions, and those who form PAC’s are interested in politics, the American People are interested in Vampires, Werewolves, Ghosts, Pumpkins, Candy, Parties, and what Taylor Swift is doing. The news covers reflects what people want and where they are willing to spend their money.
More money in history was spent on the midterm elections, but when more money is spent on Halloween than those elections we clearly see where the American People have put their priorities. It’s not in selecting leaders for our country, or having their voice heard. It’s in partying and escapism.
On average as a nation we spent $72 each on Halloween. I challenge ever Libertarian in Florida to forgo Haloween spending next year and send $72 to the LPF. The LPF put’s it’s money where its mouth is, and practices what it preaches. All politics is local, so half your donation will go to your local LP county affiliate. There were over 200 thousand people who voted for the LPF Tuesday, if they spent the same amount on the LPF as they did on Halloween every year, the LPF would have a 1.4 Million dollar annual budget, with that amount of money the LPF could and would win elections and make a difference. That much money would have made a huge difference.
If you are a libertarian and you spent more on Halloween or New Years Eve of St. Patrick’s Day to party and didn’t give to the LPF, you are a hypocrite, you don’t care about Liberty in our Lifetime. Put your money where your mouth is, CLICK HERE give up one night of partying, Halloween or New Years Eve or St. Patrick’s Day and send at least $72 to the LPF. If not You, Who? If not now, When?
You may choose to ignore politics and politicians, but they don’t ignore you. On average you’re spending $3000 per year more on healthcare because you ignored politics and politicians who passed Obamacare and are forcing you to spend more on health care. Not just this year, but every year, skip one of the many days we celebrate and spend that money on helping choose who represents and leads you in government. Or ignore politics and politicians, and party while your freedoms are slowly and methodically devoured by those who do pay attention to politics, and do put their money where their mouth is.
Follow the Money, your money, if you don’t voluntarily spend your money on politics, it’s your choice, what you are saying is that since you would rather buy pumpkins than politicians. OK that’s your choice, but because you would rather voluntarily spend your money that way it doesn’t take away the right of others like, unions, special interests, PAC’s, corporations put their money where their hearts are. You can’t bitch that there is too much money in politics when you spent more on pumpkins.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Why Not Pay Them A Lot More?
By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/12
Thomas Sowell proposes an interesting idea. Most if not all the problems we see with elected officials is them using their power to acquire a high paying job later, or inside info to make money in the market, etc. Lobbyists find it relatively easy and cheap to purchase what they want out of government.
The Libertarian Position is to make government officials so powerless it won’t matter if they are bought off. Great idea in theory, but isn’t going to happen in reality. Dr Sowell proposes that we make it harder to buy off a government official, and make the job more attractive to people with real expertise who would never consider an office because of the pay cut.
Sowell notes, “We could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year -- for a whole century -- for less than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
The least we can do is make it harder to bribe them. Trying to bribe a millionaire would at least be harder than bribing some government official with a modest salary and a couple of kids going to expensive colleges.”
At less than $600 Million, compared to the current waste in government, it might be a wise investment.
Like he says the current crop doesn’t deserve the money, but we won’t get better people at the current pay. Paying the people who control TRILLIONS of dollars a million a year is not outlandish. Look at CEO pay vs the gross revenue of companies they head. Maybe paying every member of the house $1 Million a year, the Senate and VP $1.5 million, and the President $2 Million a year, would both attract better people to the job and insulate them better from the influence of corporate money. And we wouldn’t have to deal with them voting themselves a raise every year. Something to think about. Not only if they made a lot more money, it would be a lot harder to influence them with a promise of a great job and a tip on what stock to buy, it would attract a better class ofcrook candidate. It would probably be a lot cheaper in the long run.
Definately an idea with debate.
Thomas Sowell proposes an interesting idea. Most if not all the problems we see with elected officials is them using their power to acquire a high paying job later, or inside info to make money in the market, etc. Lobbyists find it relatively easy and cheap to purchase what they want out of government.
The Libertarian Position is to make government officials so powerless it won’t matter if they are bought off. Great idea in theory, but isn’t going to happen in reality. Dr Sowell proposes that we make it harder to buy off a government official, and make the job more attractive to people with real expertise who would never consider an office because of the pay cut.
Sowell notes, “We could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year -- for a whole century -- for less than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
The least we can do is make it harder to bribe them. Trying to bribe a millionaire would at least be harder than bribing some government official with a modest salary and a couple of kids going to expensive colleges.”
At less than $600 Million, compared to the current waste in government, it might be a wise investment.
Like he says the current crop doesn’t deserve the money, but we won’t get better people at the current pay. Paying the people who control TRILLIONS of dollars a million a year is not outlandish. Look at CEO pay vs the gross revenue of companies they head. Maybe paying every member of the house $1 Million a year, the Senate and VP $1.5 million, and the President $2 Million a year, would both attract better people to the job and insulate them better from the influence of corporate money. And we wouldn’t have to deal with them voting themselves a raise every year. Something to think about. Not only if they made a lot more money, it would be a lot harder to influence them with a promise of a great job and a tip on what stock to buy, it would attract a better class of
Definately an idea with debate.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Winning the War of Ideas
By Tom Rhodes, 7/26/2013
Statists are losing the war of ideas. Look at the NJ liberal governor who happens to look like an elephant, and claims to be an elephant's latest rant against libertarians. Gov Christie says promoting the Fourth Amendment, and limiting the government from searching every persons effects is "dangerous." Like all statists over the history of man, they use the excuse that giving the state control of you will make you safer. What they don't do is tell you they mean "safer for the state" not safer for you.
It's gotten so bad that leftists are now calling for the end of the First Amendment, saying limiting free speech is a "necessity."
The obvious problem is that since the internet has allowed people to communicate and publish without going through government, big business, or a newspaper editor, ideas and information that the ruling elite would rather not have discussed, exposed, or broadcast, are now readily available to everybody. Snowden exposing the state's clear violation of its constitutional restrictions is "dangerous."
Exposing the fact that when liberal statist ideas are implemented, they result is ruin, as evidenced by Detroit after 50 years of liberal statist rule. Statists of all stripes want to put the genie back in the bottle, they want to control what information the masses are exposed. They are losing their grasp on what they thought they controlled. More and more people don't watch television as a primary means of news and entertainment. They have more choices and can actually respond and participate. A guy in his pajamas can expose the ruling elite and bring the actions of the high and mighty to the masses. This not only can, but has resulted in the impeachment of the President of the United States. The Drudge Report lead to Clinton's Impeachment.
The Libertarian Party (LP) has been around for 40 years. It was ignored for years, and until recently was treated as a foil for late night comedians. When formed in the early 70's you had your choice of ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS on TV, and other than highly edited editorials in your local newspaper, the statists controlled the ideas people were exposed, and the LP message was shut down by the ruling elite. In the Mid 80's two things happened to begin the destruction of statist control of the media and ideas. The courts forced the FCC to get rid of the so called "fairness doctrine" which lead to an explosion in talk radio, and technology advanced to a point where the internet became commercially viable. In the last 20 years, digital image technology and cell phones turned virtually every person walking the street into a reporter. That Damn 1st Amendment now means that the cops are routinely exposed for abusing our rights, Rodney King was just the start. Video and audio recording in court rooms, of the police, at town hall meetings, etc. continue to expose statists for the controlling anti-freedom, two-bit dictators they are.
The right says libertarian ideas are dangerous; the left says limiting speech is a necessity; Libertarian ideas and their implementation means more freedom, and less government. Less government means less power for the statist ruling elite. They are fighting the idea that you as an individual know best how to live your own life. That is a dangerous idea, they want control. Education is the key, the internet and 1st Amendment allow everybody to get the education they need and want without filtering by the ruling elite. In addition to wanting restrictions to free speech on the internet, they want to control what your taught. This is why Common Core, NCLB, the Dept of Education, the FCC, etc. exist. This is why Eric Holder is attacking home schooling. Control; they want to control you right down to what ideas you are exposed and what you are allowed to learn. There is a war of ideas and the battle is not over. The preamble of our Constitution starting with "We the People" was a slap in the face of the ruling elite. They now claim that those ideas that culminated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that limited the government are dangerous. They are dangerous; dangerous to the ruling elite.
Because the statists are losing the war of ideas, they are now actively calling on government and corporate control of the ideas people can share. Because of the loss of control to the news, ideas, and information that the masses are exposed, the LP can no longer be ignored. Because of the exposed abuses of power and observable outcomes of statist policies, laughing at the libertarian is not longer an effective tool to diminish their influence. The Statists are now openly attacking and fighting both libertarians and libertarian ideas like the Rule of Law, Freedom of Speech, natural rights, etc. This is good news, as the next step is Libertarian Victory.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Statists are losing the war of ideas. Look at the NJ liberal governor who happens to look like an elephant, and claims to be an elephant's latest rant against libertarians. Gov Christie says promoting the Fourth Amendment, and limiting the government from searching every persons effects is "dangerous." Like all statists over the history of man, they use the excuse that giving the state control of you will make you safer. What they don't do is tell you they mean "safer for the state" not safer for you.
It's gotten so bad that leftists are now calling for the end of the First Amendment, saying limiting free speech is a "necessity."
The obvious problem is that since the internet has allowed people to communicate and publish without going through government, big business, or a newspaper editor, ideas and information that the ruling elite would rather not have discussed, exposed, or broadcast, are now readily available to everybody. Snowden exposing the state's clear violation of its constitutional restrictions is "dangerous."
Exposing the fact that when liberal statist ideas are implemented, they result is ruin, as evidenced by Detroit after 50 years of liberal statist rule. Statists of all stripes want to put the genie back in the bottle, they want to control what information the masses are exposed. They are losing their grasp on what they thought they controlled. More and more people don't watch television as a primary means of news and entertainment. They have more choices and can actually respond and participate. A guy in his pajamas can expose the ruling elite and bring the actions of the high and mighty to the masses. This not only can, but has resulted in the impeachment of the President of the United States. The Drudge Report lead to Clinton's Impeachment.
The Libertarian Party (LP) has been around for 40 years. It was ignored for years, and until recently was treated as a foil for late night comedians. When formed in the early 70's you had your choice of ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS on TV, and other than highly edited editorials in your local newspaper, the statists controlled the ideas people were exposed, and the LP message was shut down by the ruling elite. In the Mid 80's two things happened to begin the destruction of statist control of the media and ideas. The courts forced the FCC to get rid of the so called "fairness doctrine" which lead to an explosion in talk radio, and technology advanced to a point where the internet became commercially viable. In the last 20 years, digital image technology and cell phones turned virtually every person walking the street into a reporter. That Damn 1st Amendment now means that the cops are routinely exposed for abusing our rights, Rodney King was just the start. Video and audio recording in court rooms, of the police, at town hall meetings, etc. continue to expose statists for the controlling anti-freedom, two-bit dictators they are.
The right says libertarian ideas are dangerous; the left says limiting speech is a necessity; Libertarian ideas and their implementation means more freedom, and less government. Less government means less power for the statist ruling elite. They are fighting the idea that you as an individual know best how to live your own life. That is a dangerous idea, they want control. Education is the key, the internet and 1st Amendment allow everybody to get the education they need and want without filtering by the ruling elite. In addition to wanting restrictions to free speech on the internet, they want to control what your taught. This is why Common Core, NCLB, the Dept of Education, the FCC, etc. exist. This is why Eric Holder is attacking home schooling. Control; they want to control you right down to what ideas you are exposed and what you are allowed to learn. There is a war of ideas and the battle is not over. The preamble of our Constitution starting with "We the People" was a slap in the face of the ruling elite. They now claim that those ideas that culminated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that limited the government are dangerous. They are dangerous; dangerous to the ruling elite.
Because the statists are losing the war of ideas, they are now actively calling on government and corporate control of the ideas people can share. Because of the loss of control to the news, ideas, and information that the masses are exposed, the LP can no longer be ignored. Because of the exposed abuses of power and observable outcomes of statist policies, laughing at the libertarian is not longer an effective tool to diminish their influence. The Statists are now openly attacking and fighting both libertarians and libertarian ideas like the Rule of Law, Freedom of Speech, natural rights, etc. This is good news, as the next step is Libertarian Victory.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Only an Ass Could Ignore the Elephant in the Room.
By Tom Rhodes, 7/20/2013
As I and many others have pointed out, the historic norm for mankind is for a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation. The one thing that historically differentiates the haves from the have-nots is the ability to acquire and control property. The most fundamental property being one's self. Owning your self is not the norm for most people throughout human history. In fact, even today through most of the world property rights are minimal.
Your right to vote, or right to go to church, or right to speak your mind, is all meaningless if you don't have the right to own stuff. If you own something, provided you don't infringe upon somebody else's property rights you should be able to use that property or dispose of it as you see fit. If you own a computer and want to smash it into little pieces you can it's your computer. If you own yourself then the product of your labor is yours, to trade, use, or give away as you see fit. If you own yourself then what you put into your body is your business, if you choose to put poison and destroy yourself, like smashing your computer with a sludge hammer it's your property use or misuse it as you see fit. Of course if you have a right to private property so do others, and you have no right to their property except through voluntary trade.
We know what cultural traits and behaviors lead to success: People who get an education and do their best in school, then get a job, don't use alcohol or drugs more than occasionally, don't engage in criminal behavior, go to church, and get married before having kids. These are the common behavioral norms of people who are successful in modern cultures. We also know that the best way to promote and reward these behaviors is the equal application of the rule of law; allowing people to prosper or suffer depending on how well they voluntarily serve their fellow man. The one common thread to success for individuals and society is protecting and establishing property rights. Protecting and establishing private property rights has lead to more wealth creation and a higher standard of living everywhere it's been established. From the USA to Chile to China nothing has ever created a higher standard of living than private property rights and the economic freedom that resulted from protecting private property. The middle class doesn't exist and never existed until private property rights for all people under the equal application of the rule of law was established. No country without strong private property rights has a strong middle class.
Now the problem, utopian thinkers who emotionally want everybody to be happy and well off look at the objective truth that not all people use the private property they have and amass property wisely, thus not every person generates enough private wealth to be well off. This unequal outcome is primarily result of observable actual differences in peoples physical, emotional, and intellectual abilities, and secondarily the result of interference from government in their use of private property. All people are not in reality equal, we all have different needs, wants, desires, drive, and abilities. Utopian thinkers don't deal with how things are, they deal with how they think things ought to be. Nobody should go hungry. Nobody should have to live without XYZ, etc. Because the emotions tied with seeing some people do better than others, they ignore the behaviors and other natural differences and think that "only if everybody would XYZ" then nobody would suffer. Because not everybody makes wise decisions or has the same natural ability of others, they think that some "enlightened" people should make the decisions for everybody thus nobody would be allowed to make bad decisions and the result is nobody would suffer and everything would be alright.
They believe that their good intentions and desire for a good outcome and their superior insight should be enough for everybody to accept their dictates. Thus they outlaw fast food in certain neighborhoods because people might choose to eat unhealthy. Thus they outlaw cooking with lard in restaurants. Thus they mandate you wear a helmet when you ride your bike. They think that because you might not use your body (or other property) in a manner they deem wise, that their wisdom supersedes your property rights, thus negating your right to use or dispose of your property as you deem best.
They also notice the unfair advantages that some people have and want to fix it too. It's not fair that you were born 6'8" tall and can run, jump, and accurately throw an object better than others. It's not fair that your natural ability is so good at running, jumping, and throwing objects that lots of people are willing to pay to watch you run, jump and throw stuff. You ability to parley your superior natural talents into wealth results in an unequal distribution of the wealth, thus to make things fair the utopian thinkers take a disproportionate amount of your amassed wealth that you earned through fair trade with your fellow members of society and gives it to those who can't run, jump, and throw as well, so that they don't feel slighted. They feel that they know better who should have what, and that the private trade of individuals for their private property should be controlled by those with superior insight, because protection of private property and freely trading your property with others will result in unequal distribution, and they equal distribution regardless of ability and effort.
The very idea that everybody should have equal protection under the law and have the ability to own and control private property doesn't sit well with the old ruling elite. Be they kings or popes or pharaohs or dukes or emperors or dictators they work under the assumption that they have the right and authority to determine how all property, including the labor of those who live in the area they control should be used. By divine right or merely through the right of might they work under the assumption that what those who live in their sphere of control are under their complete control. The idea is that the rules they impose upon the masses are for the masses and not the ruling elite. The words "We The People" and the idea that the government is a servant to the masses, not the other way around is repugnant, and a slap in the face to the ruling elite by mere peasants. The ruling elite have been trying for 2 centuries to eliminate the idea that the people can or should have control of private property because private property and the ability to pass it down to progeny, dramatically reduces the power and influence of a governing sovereign. Paying off cronies with the property of serfs has been a favored way of amassing power for the ruling elite for all of history.
Today we have utopian leftists and corporate cronies working together creating a system of rules that apply to the masses and not the enlightened ruling elite to reduce private property rights and once again put concentrate power it the few ruling elite who are enlightened and know best how the masses should live. The stagnation and decline of the middle class and perpetual dependency of our poor is because of the effective denigration of property rights. Progressive asses are the useful idiots manipulated by corporate pachyderms to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a despotic oligarchy and return mankind to her natural state of a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation.
As I and many others have pointed out, the historic norm for mankind is for a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation. The one thing that historically differentiates the haves from the have-nots is the ability to acquire and control property. The most fundamental property being one's self. Owning your self is not the norm for most people throughout human history. In fact, even today through most of the world property rights are minimal.
Your right to vote, or right to go to church, or right to speak your mind, is all meaningless if you don't have the right to own stuff. If you own something, provided you don't infringe upon somebody else's property rights you should be able to use that property or dispose of it as you see fit. If you own a computer and want to smash it into little pieces you can it's your computer. If you own yourself then the product of your labor is yours, to trade, use, or give away as you see fit. If you own yourself then what you put into your body is your business, if you choose to put poison and destroy yourself, like smashing your computer with a sludge hammer it's your property use or misuse it as you see fit. Of course if you have a right to private property so do others, and you have no right to their property except through voluntary trade.
We know what cultural traits and behaviors lead to success: People who get an education and do their best in school, then get a job, don't use alcohol or drugs more than occasionally, don't engage in criminal behavior, go to church, and get married before having kids. These are the common behavioral norms of people who are successful in modern cultures. We also know that the best way to promote and reward these behaviors is the equal application of the rule of law; allowing people to prosper or suffer depending on how well they voluntarily serve their fellow man. The one common thread to success for individuals and society is protecting and establishing property rights. Protecting and establishing private property rights has lead to more wealth creation and a higher standard of living everywhere it's been established. From the USA to Chile to China nothing has ever created a higher standard of living than private property rights and the economic freedom that resulted from protecting private property. The middle class doesn't exist and never existed until private property rights for all people under the equal application of the rule of law was established. No country without strong private property rights has a strong middle class.
Now the problem, utopian thinkers who emotionally want everybody to be happy and well off look at the objective truth that not all people use the private property they have and amass property wisely, thus not every person generates enough private wealth to be well off. This unequal outcome is primarily result of observable actual differences in peoples physical, emotional, and intellectual abilities, and secondarily the result of interference from government in their use of private property. All people are not in reality equal, we all have different needs, wants, desires, drive, and abilities. Utopian thinkers don't deal with how things are, they deal with how they think things ought to be. Nobody should go hungry. Nobody should have to live without XYZ, etc. Because the emotions tied with seeing some people do better than others, they ignore the behaviors and other natural differences and think that "only if everybody would XYZ" then nobody would suffer. Because not everybody makes wise decisions or has the same natural ability of others, they think that some "enlightened" people should make the decisions for everybody thus nobody would be allowed to make bad decisions and the result is nobody would suffer and everything would be alright.
They believe that their good intentions and desire for a good outcome and their superior insight should be enough for everybody to accept their dictates. Thus they outlaw fast food in certain neighborhoods because people might choose to eat unhealthy. Thus they outlaw cooking with lard in restaurants. Thus they mandate you wear a helmet when you ride your bike. They think that because you might not use your body (or other property) in a manner they deem wise, that their wisdom supersedes your property rights, thus negating your right to use or dispose of your property as you deem best.
They also notice the unfair advantages that some people have and want to fix it too. It's not fair that you were born 6'8" tall and can run, jump, and accurately throw an object better than others. It's not fair that your natural ability is so good at running, jumping, and throwing objects that lots of people are willing to pay to watch you run, jump and throw stuff. You ability to parley your superior natural talents into wealth results in an unequal distribution of the wealth, thus to make things fair the utopian thinkers take a disproportionate amount of your amassed wealth that you earned through fair trade with your fellow members of society and gives it to those who can't run, jump, and throw as well, so that they don't feel slighted. They feel that they know better who should have what, and that the private trade of individuals for their private property should be controlled by those with superior insight, because protection of private property and freely trading your property with others will result in unequal distribution, and they equal distribution regardless of ability and effort.
The very idea that everybody should have equal protection under the law and have the ability to own and control private property doesn't sit well with the old ruling elite. Be they kings or popes or pharaohs or dukes or emperors or dictators they work under the assumption that they have the right and authority to determine how all property, including the labor of those who live in the area they control should be used. By divine right or merely through the right of might they work under the assumption that what those who live in their sphere of control are under their complete control. The idea is that the rules they impose upon the masses are for the masses and not the ruling elite. The words "We The People" and the idea that the government is a servant to the masses, not the other way around is repugnant, and a slap in the face to the ruling elite by mere peasants. The ruling elite have been trying for 2 centuries to eliminate the idea that the people can or should have control of private property because private property and the ability to pass it down to progeny, dramatically reduces the power and influence of a governing sovereign. Paying off cronies with the property of serfs has been a favored way of amassing power for the ruling elite for all of history.
Today we have utopian leftists and corporate cronies working together creating a system of rules that apply to the masses and not the enlightened ruling elite to reduce private property rights and once again put concentrate power it the few ruling elite who are enlightened and know best how the masses should live. The stagnation and decline of the middle class and perpetual dependency of our poor is because of the effective denigration of property rights. Progressive asses are the useful idiots manipulated by corporate pachyderms to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a despotic oligarchy and return mankind to her natural state of a few ruling elite living in relative luxury at the expense the vast majority of people who live in privation.
Friday, April 5, 2013
It's about Honesty
By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
. . . .
The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.
Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
GOP Stands for Nothing
By Tom Rhodes, 3/5/2013
The Republicans are attacking their roots, trying to “rebrand” themselves, and figure out why they lost and are not in power. The answer is simple, they don’t stand for anything, are inconsistent. “Big Government Lite” is not a solution to the leftist, statist, positions of the Democrats. The Democrats have credibility the Republicans don’t because they at least honest and unapologetic about standing for bigger government, more government control, and increased statism.
Consider the GOP position on gasoline taxes. As mark Hendrickson noted in his Forbes article, GOP legislators are against higher gasoline taxes to pay for infrastructure repairs to roads and bridges, actually complaining that motorists would end up bearing the cost of the tax hike. Duh! Motorists use the roads why shouldn’t they pay for their maintenance. The GOP position is that those who use the roads shouldn’t bear the cost of the roads? Taxes like fuel taxes expressly used to build and maintain roads are fair, just, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay the tax, ride a bike, live in a city and walk, etc. Want to pay less tax, drive less, get a more fuel efficient vehicle, etc.
Crying Social Security is insolvent and voting to reduce soc security revenue by 2% in 2010 is another example of inconsistent, non-policy. Does the GOP believe that government should be involved in citizens retirement funding? If so vote to fund it, if not get the government out of it, but take a consistent stand. The GOP claim of fiscal responsibility isn’t followed with voting or actions that support their claim. How is voting to reduce revenues for specific projects without voting to cut those projects spending fiscally responsible. The GOP claims they want to limit government spending, but then consistently claim that decreasing part of planed increases to spending is cutting spending. At least the Democrats are honest about not caring about deficits, and wanting to ever increase the size and power of government, they are honest statists.
Every time a Republican votes for some unfunded or underfunded government spending, they are loudly proclaiming their hypocrisy. Voting to try and improve the welfare state, rather than getting rid of it, is in direct conflict with the ideas they espouse. No rational voter can be assured of what the GOP will do, Obama won in 2012 with less total votes than he had in 2008, yet a higher percentage of the vote. The reason is clear, the GOP offered a statist, Romney, whose promise wasn’t to make government smaller, but protect big business. GOP voters didn’t bother, as the author of Romney care, the foundation of Obamacare, clearly didn’t represent the ideas the GOP claim to espouse.
As I’ve been claiming for years, the reality in voting patterns and protection of individual liberty the GOP is not functionally different than the Democrats. The reality is with Democrats promising food, clothing, and shelter to all at the expense of tax payers, and more Big Brother to take care of you, and the GOP promising smaller government but consistently delivering more power to Big Brother, why vote GOP, they are liars?
Last Night on John Stossel’s show arch conservative and Republican cheer leader Glen Beck boldly proclaimed that he was a Libertarian, renounced many of his past positions as wrong. Welcome aboard Mr. Beck, your newfound conversion to limited government is welcome. You have learned and now agree that voting for the GOP isn’t going to make you freer, reduce the size of government or even, as promised, reduce your actual tax burden. Voting for Democrats you will get what they promise, bigger government and more taxes. There is a clear different choice, but . . . . . that choice actually attempts to do what it says, reduce the size and scope of government. The Libertarian Party where elected won’t give you anarchy, but will wherever it can actually reduce the size of government and work to limit the power and authority of the state. That means it will let you keep more of what you earn but it won’t take care of you. Having the freedom to keep what you earn assumes you are responsible to provide for yourself.
As Libertarians, we need to welcome those abandoning the GOP with open arms. They don’t have perfect libertarian philosophy, but only accepting perfect libertarians hasn’t worked out so well for us. We are better off with and can make a bigger difference with libertarian leaning conservatives joining us than kicking them out because they are still learning and don’t quite get the minutia of this libertarian thought.
The Republicans are attacking their roots, trying to “rebrand” themselves, and figure out why they lost and are not in power. The answer is simple, they don’t stand for anything, are inconsistent. “Big Government Lite” is not a solution to the leftist, statist, positions of the Democrats. The Democrats have credibility the Republicans don’t because they at least honest and unapologetic about standing for bigger government, more government control, and increased statism.
Consider the GOP position on gasoline taxes. As mark Hendrickson noted in his Forbes article, GOP legislators are against higher gasoline taxes to pay for infrastructure repairs to roads and bridges, actually complaining that motorists would end up bearing the cost of the tax hike. Duh! Motorists use the roads why shouldn’t they pay for their maintenance. The GOP position is that those who use the roads shouldn’t bear the cost of the roads? Taxes like fuel taxes expressly used to build and maintain roads are fair, just, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay the tax, ride a bike, live in a city and walk, etc. Want to pay less tax, drive less, get a more fuel efficient vehicle, etc.
Crying Social Security is insolvent and voting to reduce soc security revenue by 2% in 2010 is another example of inconsistent, non-policy. Does the GOP believe that government should be involved in citizens retirement funding? If so vote to fund it, if not get the government out of it, but take a consistent stand. The GOP claim of fiscal responsibility isn’t followed with voting or actions that support their claim. How is voting to reduce revenues for specific projects without voting to cut those projects spending fiscally responsible. The GOP claims they want to limit government spending, but then consistently claim that decreasing part of planed increases to spending is cutting spending. At least the Democrats are honest about not caring about deficits, and wanting to ever increase the size and power of government, they are honest statists.
Every time a Republican votes for some unfunded or underfunded government spending, they are loudly proclaiming their hypocrisy. Voting to try and improve the welfare state, rather than getting rid of it, is in direct conflict with the ideas they espouse. No rational voter can be assured of what the GOP will do, Obama won in 2012 with less total votes than he had in 2008, yet a higher percentage of the vote. The reason is clear, the GOP offered a statist, Romney, whose promise wasn’t to make government smaller, but protect big business. GOP voters didn’t bother, as the author of Romney care, the foundation of Obamacare, clearly didn’t represent the ideas the GOP claim to espouse.
As I’ve been claiming for years, the reality in voting patterns and protection of individual liberty the GOP is not functionally different than the Democrats. The reality is with Democrats promising food, clothing, and shelter to all at the expense of tax payers, and more Big Brother to take care of you, and the GOP promising smaller government but consistently delivering more power to Big Brother, why vote GOP, they are liars?
Last Night on John Stossel’s show arch conservative and Republican cheer leader Glen Beck boldly proclaimed that he was a Libertarian, renounced many of his past positions as wrong. Welcome aboard Mr. Beck, your newfound conversion to limited government is welcome. You have learned and now agree that voting for the GOP isn’t going to make you freer, reduce the size of government or even, as promised, reduce your actual tax burden. Voting for Democrats you will get what they promise, bigger government and more taxes. There is a clear different choice, but . . . . . that choice actually attempts to do what it says, reduce the size and scope of government. The Libertarian Party where elected won’t give you anarchy, but will wherever it can actually reduce the size of government and work to limit the power and authority of the state. That means it will let you keep more of what you earn but it won’t take care of you. Having the freedom to keep what you earn assumes you are responsible to provide for yourself.
As Libertarians, we need to welcome those abandoning the GOP with open arms. They don’t have perfect libertarian philosophy, but only accepting perfect libertarians hasn’t worked out so well for us. We are better off with and can make a bigger difference with libertarian leaning conservatives joining us than kicking them out because they are still learning and don’t quite get the minutia of this libertarian thought.
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Game.
By Tom Rhodes, 2/25/2013
The Game is declared to be "democracy" it's not, the controllers of the Game want to include only two teams; Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm. Other teams are excluded and even when they do get to play the only allowed winners are those supported by statists, Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm. It's rigged and they hate others trying to play using the truth. Fighting with statists and exposing them to the truth is fun but somewhat counterproductive. Although outside of the ruling elite the argument almost always boils down to "MY guy might be bad....but he's nowhere near as bad as YOUR guy!"
Libertarians and other groups who espouse the general principle that so long as you're not infringing upon the rights of others you should be free to do as you please have a major problem. We don't want to be controlled and are consistent in our beliefs and translate not wanting to be controlled into not wanting to control others. That is why in general we lose, as it's hard to get a good qualified person to run on a plat form of "I don't care so long as you leave me alone."
The truth is if you favor either Team Pachyderm or Team Jackass and you are truthful you'd have to admit that "Your guy is rotten, but my guy is just as rotten because it's THEM not us." The perceived beliefs of both Teams Jackass and Pachyderm are rooted in psychological wants and desires not truth. Challenging their beliefs, regardless of how rational, objective, and clearly stated becomes a personal affront. When people take things as personal affronts they become more resistant to change or looking at the truth, and will go to almost any length to defend their personal belief regardless of how much cognitive dissonance required rationalizing it.
Consider Sen. Diane Feinstein, and the January Senate hearings on her proposed new law on banning some weapons. During the hearings there was good representation of both sides of the gun control issue. But because there was an opposing view presented and that view she took as a personal affront, Sen. Feinstein became so upset she's demanding to have her own hearings where those opposed to her point of view won't be present to speak. Her point of view is that if anybody who doesn't agree with her is allowed to be heard than it's a biased hearing against her beliefs. She believes having a hearing where more than one perspective is presented is counterproductive, because it doesn't result in confirming her wants and desires. Logic, reason, and rational discourse that doesn't confirm here pre-conceived beliefs are not to be tolerated.
Right now Carl Rove is trying to purge Team Pachyderm of those who don't support the statist agenda. The officials of the Games have decided that non-statist views are those who support them are not allowed to play the Game. Those opposed to government solutions and more and more government, are being excluded from the Game. The fact is Rove and statists controlling Team Pachyderm, have had their beliefs challenged and can't stand it anymore than Feinstein can accept opposing views to her beliefs.
When statists debate one another (Teams Jackass and Pachyderm), as is commonly displayed on TV and radio as spectacle to ostensibly benefit the public, all they do is reinforce the psychological conditioning and acceptance of big government that they have successfully brainwashed the masses. The Team Pachyderm and Team Jackass advocate the initiation of force against others to mold the world according to their statist social and economic goals. Both teams want to control. Obama is a prime example, when he's failed to get laws allowing him more control; he goes ahead through "executive order." Statists of both teams not getting their way ignore the will of the people, and do what they want anyway.
Once upon a time the idea that everybody was "innocent until proven guilty" was embedded in the psyche of the masses. This meant that everybody accepted the fact that before a fundamental right of a person could be restricted by the government, that the government had the burden of proof, and had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that individual's rights should be restricted because that individual proved to a jury of his peers that his rights could be restricted. Today that is a foreign concept to the officials of the Game and both Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm. For some reason the idea that you are guilty and must first prove to Game officials, who are chosen by Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm, that you won't abuse your natural rights, has invaded the psyche of the masses.
Most people, especially those in the Libertarian party, believe in a constitutionally limited government and those who believe people are better off free share a common trait, they don't want to be controlled by others and don't have a desire to control others. Some call this "voluntarism." Basically we just want all ya'all to leave us alone and do our own thing, and we'll keep our noses out of your business and let you do your own thing. As long as we're not infringing on each other's rights there are no problems.
The problem is the game, where the officials and major team owners have another idea. Both Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm are statists and have problems with you and I. They both want to infringe on our rights and control us. So anytime a non-statist picks a fight with those teams or even challenges a ruling on the field, you are by association picking a fight with both teams. The right vs. left, or conservative vs. liberal, or Democrat vs. Republican arguments are a game, a pretense, a farce, they are not real just a game. Those arguments are the equivalent of the RPG game Dungeons & Dragons, a nerdy waste of time where the game, D&D, has one purpose Distract & Divide.
The way to win is not to play. Free people cannot be disarmed or enslaved unless they want to be. The only way to disarm a free man and take is freedom is to kill him. Be free, don't play the statist game, quit wasting your time trying to convince the likes of Senator Feinstein with facts and figures, she doesn't care and will take it personally, she like the other statists on Team PachAss are all about control not freedom. Regardless of historic fact, logic, reasoning, objective evidence they don't want nor accept any ideas that limit the state, and not only won't listen to them, will actively try to silence those ideas.
Quit playing the game, live free regardless of what they say and don't support either Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm.
The Game is declared to be "democracy" it's not, the controllers of the Game want to include only two teams; Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm. Other teams are excluded and even when they do get to play the only allowed winners are those supported by statists, Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm. It's rigged and they hate others trying to play using the truth. Fighting with statists and exposing them to the truth is fun but somewhat counterproductive. Although outside of the ruling elite the argument almost always boils down to "MY guy might be bad....but he's nowhere near as bad as YOUR guy!"
Libertarians and other groups who espouse the general principle that so long as you're not infringing upon the rights of others you should be free to do as you please have a major problem. We don't want to be controlled and are consistent in our beliefs and translate not wanting to be controlled into not wanting to control others. That is why in general we lose, as it's hard to get a good qualified person to run on a plat form of "I don't care so long as you leave me alone."
The truth is if you favor either Team Pachyderm or Team Jackass and you are truthful you'd have to admit that "Your guy is rotten, but my guy is just as rotten because it's THEM not us." The perceived beliefs of both Teams Jackass and Pachyderm are rooted in psychological wants and desires not truth. Challenging their beliefs, regardless of how rational, objective, and clearly stated becomes a personal affront. When people take things as personal affronts they become more resistant to change or looking at the truth, and will go to almost any length to defend their personal belief regardless of how much cognitive dissonance required rationalizing it.
Consider Sen. Diane Feinstein, and the January Senate hearings on her proposed new law on banning some weapons. During the hearings there was good representation of both sides of the gun control issue. But because there was an opposing view presented and that view she took as a personal affront, Sen. Feinstein became so upset she's demanding to have her own hearings where those opposed to her point of view won't be present to speak. Her point of view is that if anybody who doesn't agree with her is allowed to be heard than it's a biased hearing against her beliefs. She believes having a hearing where more than one perspective is presented is counterproductive, because it doesn't result in confirming her wants and desires. Logic, reason, and rational discourse that doesn't confirm here pre-conceived beliefs are not to be tolerated.
Right now Carl Rove is trying to purge Team Pachyderm of those who don't support the statist agenda. The officials of the Games have decided that non-statist views are those who support them are not allowed to play the Game. Those opposed to government solutions and more and more government, are being excluded from the Game. The fact is Rove and statists controlling Team Pachyderm, have had their beliefs challenged and can't stand it anymore than Feinstein can accept opposing views to her beliefs.
When statists debate one another (Teams Jackass and Pachyderm), as is commonly displayed on TV and radio as spectacle to ostensibly benefit the public, all they do is reinforce the psychological conditioning and acceptance of big government that they have successfully brainwashed the masses. The Team Pachyderm and Team Jackass advocate the initiation of force against others to mold the world according to their statist social and economic goals. Both teams want to control. Obama is a prime example, when he's failed to get laws allowing him more control; he goes ahead through "executive order." Statists of both teams not getting their way ignore the will of the people, and do what they want anyway.
Once upon a time the idea that everybody was "innocent until proven guilty" was embedded in the psyche of the masses. This meant that everybody accepted the fact that before a fundamental right of a person could be restricted by the government, that the government had the burden of proof, and had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that individual's rights should be restricted because that individual proved to a jury of his peers that his rights could be restricted. Today that is a foreign concept to the officials of the Game and both Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm. For some reason the idea that you are guilty and must first prove to Game officials, who are chosen by Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm, that you won't abuse your natural rights, has invaded the psyche of the masses.
Most people, especially those in the Libertarian party, believe in a constitutionally limited government and those who believe people are better off free share a common trait, they don't want to be controlled by others and don't have a desire to control others. Some call this "voluntarism." Basically we just want all ya'all to leave us alone and do our own thing, and we'll keep our noses out of your business and let you do your own thing. As long as we're not infringing on each other's rights there are no problems.
The problem is the game, where the officials and major team owners have another idea. Both Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm are statists and have problems with you and I. They both want to infringe on our rights and control us. So anytime a non-statist picks a fight with those teams or even challenges a ruling on the field, you are by association picking a fight with both teams. The right vs. left, or conservative vs. liberal, or Democrat vs. Republican arguments are a game, a pretense, a farce, they are not real just a game. Those arguments are the equivalent of the RPG game Dungeons & Dragons, a nerdy waste of time where the game, D&D, has one purpose Distract & Divide.
The way to win is not to play. Free people cannot be disarmed or enslaved unless they want to be. The only way to disarm a free man and take is freedom is to kill him. Be free, don't play the statist game, quit wasting your time trying to convince the likes of Senator Feinstein with facts and figures, she doesn't care and will take it personally, she like the other statists on Team PachAss are all about control not freedom. Regardless of historic fact, logic, reasoning, objective evidence they don't want nor accept any ideas that limit the state, and not only won't listen to them, will actively try to silence those ideas.
Quit playing the game, live free regardless of what they say and don't support either Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Limbaugh agrees with LP on the GOP and Dems
By Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2013
The almighty El-Rushbo has finally realized what the LP has been saying for decades. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, they are simply two factions of the ruling elite in Washington DC.
The almighty El-Rushbo has finally realized what the LP has been saying for decades. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, they are simply two factions of the ruling elite in Washington DC.
"You know what this was? This was perhaps, folks, one of the best illustrations of the whole concept that we've spoken here about on numerous occasions of the ruling class, the political class. It doesn't matter what party, they're all part of the ruling class, the political class in DC, and when the rubber hits the road, they all circle the wagons around each other. Well, the Republicans join in circling the wagons. The Democrats never do when it's a Republican involved, but for the most part they do. They close ranks, and they protect one another because what they're protecting is themselves."
"They're protecting the ruling class, the political elites, and they're maintaining the status quo.... So what we had here, folks, was the ruling class circling the wagons and protecting each other. Party affiliation did not matter. We're always hoping at hearings like this that somebody on our side is gonna stand up and give the Democrats what-for, somebody is gonna stand up and nail 'em to the cross or whatever, ask the tough questions, get to the bottom of it just as the Democrats do with our judicial nominees or anybody in our party who falls in the crosshairs. We keep waiting for it, and it never happens. They never do it."
~ Rush Limbaugh
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Democrat Party Adopts Libertarian Party Stupidity
By Tom Rhodes, 9/8/12
I’ve been saying for quite a while that to be successful the Libertarian Party has to change its image. The image that most of America has of the LP is that of extremist pot smoking adolescent atheistic anarchists. There is hope for the LP, not because we are doing anything to change our image, but at least our convention had real debate and showed that we are a party of principle. The hope comes from the fact that even we in the LP aren’t extreme enough nor stupid enough to boo God. This video is why the Democrats will lose big in November.
Depending on the poll, between 80 and 90% of Americans believe in God. Throwing God out of your political party tells that 80 to 90% that they are wrong. Telling 90% of the population "Go to hell" three times, and having to have your ruling elite ignore your voice, is not smart politics.
The LP tries to have the most open tent of all the political parties; we embrace atheists, anarchists, secessionists, people of all religions, all races, all persuasions, all beliefs, yet denounce God and the beliefs of most of the country. This is part of why the American people don’t trust and rarely elect Libertarians. Political parties exist for one reason; that is to elect people to power to lead/run government.
Functions of Political Parties
So with that in mind why does the LP embrace anarchists? Anarchists are against the very reason a political party exists. This is basic logic that makes the LP appear irrational to most Americans. Adding in terms like minanarchism to try and placate people who believe that government is necessary. The result is adolescent psudointellectual crap that America sees as “anarchist”. Regardless of what Wikipedia says about minanarchism, what most of America thinks can be found in the Urban Dictionary. Extremist ideas will not win elections. Legalizing pot is not an extremist idea . . . . . anymore.
The Democrats denying God three times in this year’s DNC, is extreme, Biblically extreme. That gives hope to the LP as we now look more mainstream than do the Democrats. If the LP is ever to become more than a 1% joke for late night comedians, we have to eliminate those parts of our platform that are not libertarian and extremist. I’ll use one extremely controversial issue, which the Democrats were dumb enough to add to their platform that has been in the LP platform for decades; Abortion.
This is not about being pro-life or pro-choice or promoting either side of the issue. The fact is Abortion is a divisive issue that if you’re a libertarian you must either totally embrace or totally reject, there is no middle ground for Libertarians. The reason is that the heart of libertarian thinking is the idea of basic unalienable rights. The most basic is the right to life. On moral and scientific grounds people can believe that life begins at conception, and that creating a life was started because of a choice, and as such there may be consequences. If you believe life begins at conception, then you have no other choice than to consider abortion as murder of a less developed person by a more developed person. If however you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then you must support abortion as the right to life is embodied by the concept of self ownership, and means that a person can and should be able to do with their body as they see fit, and the government cannot and should not force people to do with their body what the government wants.
As a Libertarian you cannot have any middle ground on Abortion; if you do, you aren’t really a libertarian. This issue divides America more than any other. Picking a side alienates a huge part of the country. The LP should eliminate all references to Abortion in its national platform, to support the pro-choice side of the argument, tells all those who believe that believe life begins at conception that the LP endorses murder. To support the pro-life side tells all those who don’t, that the LP endorses slavery where the government can dictate to women what they can/can’t do with their bodies. The issue is a political loser, and to half the country makes the LP not look like the Party of Principle, but look like the party of anti-liberty; Pro-murder or Pro-enslavement but not pro-liberty. The Abortion plank in the LP platform makes us unpalatable to almost the entire country. The Democrats have adopted this same divisive plank for their party.
We could however rethink the idea of the LP. Rather than being a party whose purpose is to elect people to office to run government, we may consider ourselves something else. The idea of legalizing pot is no longer extreme. It was at one time considered one of these extreme planks of the LP that was justification for dismissing the LP as a place for “Republicans who want to smoke dope.” Legalizing pot is now being considered a mainstream idea. If we in the LP don’t consider it our goal to win elections, then maybe it is to direct and force the country to look at the other parties and their ideas on Liberty and Freedom. This is the direction that many leaders in the LP think should be the purpose of the LP. If not for the LP the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) wouldn’t exist. Our candidates may get only 1% of the vote, but our ideas are permeating society.
From the Cato Institute, to John Stossel, libertarian thinking and ideas are now mainstream. But the more extreme factions of the LP, like embracing anarchists, make the Libertarian Party unacceptable to most of America. To be truly libertarian, we must look at our platform in a far more critical way. Embracing extremist positions that alienate those who love Liberty by embracing what many find as clearly un-libertarian ideas, is not going to make our party stronger. Compare the national LP platform to that of the LPF (Libertarian Party of Florida), and you will see that the LPF platform embraces liberty equally as well as the national platform without embracing extremism. This may be a model for the future and a more powerful LP.
Maybe we should start with the same purpose statement that was used to create this great nation:
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
I’ve been saying for quite a while that to be successful the Libertarian Party has to change its image. The image that most of America has of the LP is that of extremist pot smoking adolescent atheistic anarchists. There is hope for the LP, not because we are doing anything to change our image, but at least our convention had real debate and showed that we are a party of principle. The hope comes from the fact that even we in the LP aren’t extreme enough nor stupid enough to boo God. This video is why the Democrats will lose big in November.
Depending on the poll, between 80 and 90% of Americans believe in God. Throwing God out of your political party tells that 80 to 90% that they are wrong. Telling 90% of the population "Go to hell" three times, and having to have your ruling elite ignore your voice, is not smart politics.
The LP tries to have the most open tent of all the political parties; we embrace atheists, anarchists, secessionists, people of all religions, all races, all persuasions, all beliefs, yet denounce God and the beliefs of most of the country. This is part of why the American people don’t trust and rarely elect Libertarians. Political parties exist for one reason; that is to elect people to power to lead/run government.
Functions of Political Parties
1) The main purpose of political parties is to join people who hold similar points of view about the government together. These groups work to participate in and influence the government by having its members elected to a government position. Even though many people choose to be associated with a certain party, they don't all share exactly the same beliefs. However, the core beliefs about how government should be run are shared.
2) The United States is a two-party system. Although there are minor parties, none have been able to gain the support needed to win a national election. In America, we have a two-party system where the Republicans and Democrats dominate the political scene. However, there is a growing trend in the United States for voters to be registered as independent. This group votes for different parties in each election. An independent may vote for a Republican for president and a Democrat for senator. The Republicans and Democrats work hard to understand this group of voters.
3) Parties must promote a broad set of core beliefs to reach their members as well as independent voters. Even those voters who choose to be affiliated with a certain party tend to choose candidates who hold a middle of the road view. For these reasons, parties tend to form their platform based on reaching those who hold a moderate viewpoint. This is beneficial to our country in many ways. Most importantly, it keeps our government from taking on an extreme point of view that would appeal only to a small portion of the population.(emphasis added)
So with that in mind why does the LP embrace anarchists? Anarchists are against the very reason a political party exists. This is basic logic that makes the LP appear irrational to most Americans. Adding in terms like minanarchism to try and placate people who believe that government is necessary. The result is adolescent psudointellectual crap that America sees as “anarchist”. Regardless of what Wikipedia says about minanarchism, what most of America thinks can be found in the Urban Dictionary. Extremist ideas will not win elections. Legalizing pot is not an extremist idea . . . . . anymore.
The Democrats denying God three times in this year’s DNC, is extreme, Biblically extreme. That gives hope to the LP as we now look more mainstream than do the Democrats. If the LP is ever to become more than a 1% joke for late night comedians, we have to eliminate those parts of our platform that are not libertarian and extremist. I’ll use one extremely controversial issue, which the Democrats were dumb enough to add to their platform that has been in the LP platform for decades; Abortion.
This is not about being pro-life or pro-choice or promoting either side of the issue. The fact is Abortion is a divisive issue that if you’re a libertarian you must either totally embrace or totally reject, there is no middle ground for Libertarians. The reason is that the heart of libertarian thinking is the idea of basic unalienable rights. The most basic is the right to life. On moral and scientific grounds people can believe that life begins at conception, and that creating a life was started because of a choice, and as such there may be consequences. If you believe life begins at conception, then you have no other choice than to consider abortion as murder of a less developed person by a more developed person. If however you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then you must support abortion as the right to life is embodied by the concept of self ownership, and means that a person can and should be able to do with their body as they see fit, and the government cannot and should not force people to do with their body what the government wants.
As a Libertarian you cannot have any middle ground on Abortion; if you do, you aren’t really a libertarian. This issue divides America more than any other. Picking a side alienates a huge part of the country. The LP should eliminate all references to Abortion in its national platform, to support the pro-choice side of the argument, tells all those who believe that believe life begins at conception that the LP endorses murder. To support the pro-life side tells all those who don’t, that the LP endorses slavery where the government can dictate to women what they can/can’t do with their bodies. The issue is a political loser, and to half the country makes the LP not look like the Party of Principle, but look like the party of anti-liberty; Pro-murder or Pro-enslavement but not pro-liberty. The Abortion plank in the LP platform makes us unpalatable to almost the entire country. The Democrats have adopted this same divisive plank for their party.
We could however rethink the idea of the LP. Rather than being a party whose purpose is to elect people to office to run government, we may consider ourselves something else. The idea of legalizing pot is no longer extreme. It was at one time considered one of these extreme planks of the LP that was justification for dismissing the LP as a place for “Republicans who want to smoke dope.” Legalizing pot is now being considered a mainstream idea. If we in the LP don’t consider it our goal to win elections, then maybe it is to direct and force the country to look at the other parties and their ideas on Liberty and Freedom. This is the direction that many leaders in the LP think should be the purpose of the LP. If not for the LP the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) wouldn’t exist. Our candidates may get only 1% of the vote, but our ideas are permeating society.
From the Cato Institute, to John Stossel, libertarian thinking and ideas are now mainstream. But the more extreme factions of the LP, like embracing anarchists, make the Libertarian Party unacceptable to most of America. To be truly libertarian, we must look at our platform in a far more critical way. Embracing extremist positions that alienate those who love Liberty by embracing what many find as clearly un-libertarian ideas, is not going to make our party stronger. Compare the national LP platform to that of the LPF (Libertarian Party of Florida), and you will see that the LPF platform embraces liberty equally as well as the national platform without embracing extremism. This may be a model for the future and a more powerful LP.
Maybe we should start with the same purpose statement that was used to create this great nation:
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Monday, June 18, 2012
Read My Lips, Obama Style
By Tom Rhodes, 6/18/2012
Obama Said: "Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I've said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven't gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it."
OK, let's look.
Bush 41 lost relection on one broken promise; "Read my Lips, No New Taxes", based on Obama's string of broken promises no rational American could or would vote for him. Of course there is a real choice, and Mitt isn't that choice. Look at Libertarian Gary Johnson, and his record.
Obama Said: "Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I've said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven't gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it."
OK, let's look.
"Lobbyists won't work in my White House" (spoken on his Iowa bus tour on Dec. 15, 2007).
"We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Sen. Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it" (spoken during the Democratic Party presidential debate on Feb. 21, 2008).
"These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made" (spoken on Jan. 20, 2008, and seven other times).
"We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws" (spoken in Miami on May 23, 2008).
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do" (spoken on the campaign trail in 2008).
"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office" (spoken at the opening of Fiscal Responsibility Summit on Feb. 23, 2009).
"We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov" (spoken in a speech on Jan. 28, 2009).
"There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut" (spoken during the third presidential debate on Oct. 15, 2008.
"We are going to ban all earmarks" (spoken at a press conference on Jan. 6, 2009).
"Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online" (spoken on campaign trail in June 2007).
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes" (spoken in September 2008 at a town-hall meeting in Dover).
"[I] will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors - saving them an average of $1,400 a year - and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all" (from Barack Obama presidential campaign fact sheet in 2008).
"[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell" (spoken to an audience in Phoenix on Feb. 18, 2009).
"The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order" (presidential executive order on Jan. 22, 2009).
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights" (On a fact sheet distributed by the Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign).
"I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]" (spoken on Feb. 23, 2008).
Bush 41 lost relection on one broken promise; "Read my Lips, No New Taxes", based on Obama's string of broken promises no rational American could or would vote for him. Of course there is a real choice, and Mitt isn't that choice. Look at Libertarian Gary Johnson, and his record.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Politically Incorrect Brain Farts
By Tom Rhodes, 06/04/2012
White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy on Health Care,Nancy-Ann DeParle, met with big-pharmaceutical companies and told them that if they didn't support Obamacare, Mr. Obama would demand a 15 percent rebate [kickback] on Medicare drugs and push to remove the tax deduction for direct consumer advertising. This was reported in the Washing Times, which noted that capitulating with Obama's administration on Obamacare saves big-pharmaceutical companies about $100BILLION over 10 years. Why is government extortion of business legal in the USA, but Walmart is penalized and demonized when they payoff Mexican officials to build stores across the border?
Why is our society letting the 2-4% of deviants force the 96-98% of society which conforms to eons old traditional ethics, re-arrange their beliefs on behalf of those deviants?
Why are we surprised our government is dysfunctional when our society has given a small group of fallible people trillions of other people's money and the power to dictate its redistribution?
The Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch mandates a two year ban on any kind of direct involvement with a previous employer, client or co-worker. Why has the rule of law, and our ethics been negated for people like Craig Becker, former lawyer for the Service employees International Union (SEIU) who, who by recess appointment, served as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and now serves as general counsel to the AFL-CIO?
By what rational standard considering our founding documents as framed by our forefathers can controlling what and how much people eat and drink to be a function of government?
Why in the NBA is the under-representation of black coaches is a problem, but under-representation of white players not?
Suggested reading: David Harsanyi's Nanny State: How Fast Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children
Why is it not racist for the City of LA to ban new fast food restaurants in South LA because poor minorities are too stupid to make their own food choices?
Why are mind altering substances created from fermented grains and fruit legal, but those smoked or ingested from leaves or flowers not?
The Great Society promised better for inner city poor, delivered the "projects". Obamacare promised cheaper health care and keeping your plan if you wanted, delivered increased costs and loss of insurance choices. Nixon's war on drugs promised a better society, delivered death by swat team and massive incarceration. Why do American voters keep buying political rhetoric of the two major parties accepting their promises of heaven but delivery of hell?
Earning something is not the same as winning something. Most cultures don't understand or even recognize the difference and their languages reflect this lack of fundamental understanding. Much of the hatred for the USA in other parts of the world is reflected in this fundamental misunderstanding. In English the verb earn has several meanings all similar:
1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: i.e. to earn one's living.
2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: i.e.to receive more than one has earned.
3. to acquire through merit: i.e.to earn a reputation for honesty.
4. to gain as due return or profit: i.e. Savings accounts earn interest.
5. to bring about or cause deservedly: i.e. His fair dealing earned our confidence.
Winning something however may or may not be associated with service or effort or what is justly due. You can win a race by superior effort, but you can also win a lottery by luck, or you can win a position by the favor of another. Winning something implies some luck, or other outside influence over what someone gains, whereas earning something only implies gaining through merit or what is justly due. This subtle difference is important. The wealth, power, freedom, and liberty Americans have was earned, not won. Societies that don't comprehend or understand the difference hate the USA because they don't believe that what the USA has is merited. This is why Marxism and its derivative socialism, fail, it is based on redistribution of winnings, ignoring the fact that in a free society people gain based on what they individually merit. Why have we allowed statists to confuse winning and earning in our society?
Overall violent crime is way down and near historic lows while at the same time gun ownership is at near historic highs. While correlation does not equal causation, why does most of the mainstream press insist on equating more guns to more crime, when the evidence points to the opposite and no evidence supports the emotional but irrational idea that less guns would make us safer?
White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy on Health Care,Nancy-Ann DeParle, met with big-pharmaceutical companies and told them that if they didn't support Obamacare, Mr. Obama would demand a 15 percent rebate [kickback] on Medicare drugs and push to remove the tax deduction for direct consumer advertising. This was reported in the Washing Times, which noted that capitulating with Obama's administration on Obamacare saves big-pharmaceutical companies about $100BILLION over 10 years. Why is government extortion of business legal in the USA, but Walmart is penalized and demonized when they payoff Mexican officials to build stores across the border?
Why is our society letting the 2-4% of deviants force the 96-98% of society which conforms to eons old traditional ethics, re-arrange their beliefs on behalf of those deviants?
Why are we surprised our government is dysfunctional when our society has given a small group of fallible people trillions of other people's money and the power to dictate its redistribution?
The Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch mandates a two year ban on any kind of direct involvement with a previous employer, client or co-worker. Why has the rule of law, and our ethics been negated for people like Craig Becker, former lawyer for the Service employees International Union (SEIU) who, who by recess appointment, served as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and now serves as general counsel to the AFL-CIO?
By what rational standard considering our founding documents as framed by our forefathers can controlling what and how much people eat and drink to be a function of government?
Why in the NBA is the under-representation of black coaches is a problem, but under-representation of white players not?
Suggested reading: David Harsanyi's Nanny State: How Fast Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children
Why is it not racist for the City of LA to ban new fast food restaurants in South LA because poor minorities are too stupid to make their own food choices?
Why are mind altering substances created from fermented grains and fruit legal, but those smoked or ingested from leaves or flowers not?
The Great Society promised better for inner city poor, delivered the "projects". Obamacare promised cheaper health care and keeping your plan if you wanted, delivered increased costs and loss of insurance choices. Nixon's war on drugs promised a better society, delivered death by swat team and massive incarceration. Why do American voters keep buying political rhetoric of the two major parties accepting their promises of heaven but delivery of hell?
Earning something is not the same as winning something. Most cultures don't understand or even recognize the difference and their languages reflect this lack of fundamental understanding. Much of the hatred for the USA in other parts of the world is reflected in this fundamental misunderstanding. In English the verb earn has several meanings all similar:
1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: i.e. to earn one's living.
2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: i.e.to receive more than one has earned.
3. to acquire through merit: i.e.to earn a reputation for honesty.
4. to gain as due return or profit: i.e. Savings accounts earn interest.
5. to bring about or cause deservedly: i.e. His fair dealing earned our confidence.
Winning something however may or may not be associated with service or effort or what is justly due. You can win a race by superior effort, but you can also win a lottery by luck, or you can win a position by the favor of another. Winning something implies some luck, or other outside influence over what someone gains, whereas earning something only implies gaining through merit or what is justly due. This subtle difference is important. The wealth, power, freedom, and liberty Americans have was earned, not won. Societies that don't comprehend or understand the difference hate the USA because they don't believe that what the USA has is merited. This is why Marxism and its derivative socialism, fail, it is based on redistribution of winnings, ignoring the fact that in a free society people gain based on what they individually merit. Why have we allowed statists to confuse winning and earning in our society?
Overall violent crime is way down and near historic lows while at the same time gun ownership is at near historic highs. While correlation does not equal causation, why does most of the mainstream press insist on equating more guns to more crime, when the evidence points to the opposite and no evidence supports the emotional but irrational idea that less guns would make us safer?
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Why Libertarians Don’t Win Elections
by Tom Rhodes, 12/29/2011
The fundamental reason libertarians don’t win a lot of elections is not based on their ideology, but based on the fact that they live what the preach. Studies show that libertarians are as individuals more charitable than conservatives and liberals. Economically, philosophically, and morally, libertarian ideas have been proven to be what is best for the vast majority of people. The fundamental problem libertarians have is that they are good libertarians. They actually live by the standard of “live and let live.” The other basic principle is the one that says “effort should be rewarded as much as possible.”
The general desire to be left alone and to leave others alone, to oppose aggression against others, to allow others to succeed or not succeed based upon their own effort, and to voluntarily help your neighbor as you best see fit, are the fundamentals of libertarian ideology. Good Libertarians don’t seek power, nor to control others, as a result libertarians make bad politicians.
Libertarians are not demanding, which explains our political weakness. Self reliance, responsibility, the ability to not meddle in other’s affairs, and the live-and-let-live independence and the respect for the rights of others that permeate libertarian political positions are also considered to be the characteristics of emotionally mature adults. In general grownups content to live our own lives and willing to let others do the same? Meddling in the affairs of others, is synonymous with teen-age drama and angst, and is incompatible with grown-up (libertarian) behavior. Thus Libertarians by their very nature are not political animals.
Now liberals, statists, socialists, communists, etc, all have third grade mentality on fairness, thus love to meddle. Every desire becomes a right, every difference becomes a cause, and they cannot resist creating a new law, regulation, or dictate to “fix” things. Though outnumbered by a vast majority (liberals make up only 20% of the US population), they have learned to use the maturity of grown-ups who prefer not to meddle against liberty. They know that businesses and governments will make concessions to radical demands to avoid a scene and get back to business. They accumulate these capitulations over time to increase their power.
The TEA Party’s libertarian message, defensive in nature, basically a message of “Stop Spending” and “Leave Us Alone” has been morphed and distorted by Republicans, who are just statists with a dedication to big business not liberty. That defensive message won’t win elections. Just as in sports, it is offense, not defense that scores points. It’s hard to make a basket while defending your own hoop.
The liberal minority dominates American politics because liberals have a strategy for eroding liberty and promoting statism. Libertarians do not have an effective strategy of promoting liberty. Where is the libertarian strategy to ensure that every high-school student in America can give a spirited defense of liberty or free enterprise? Our defense has resulted in a win for leftists who have virtually removed the Declaration of Independence for our schools. Where is the libertarian strategy to ensure that immigrants assimilate and believe in liberty over socialism? There is no coherent strategy to return our culture to its libertarian roots.
We have failed to do as our founding fathers exhorted us to do. We have not been vigilant to protect liberty. Unless we actively work at and convert the main stream media to believing in liberty not statism, we are lost. The message of liberty cannot stand if we continue to “live and let live” and no longer hold the press and our politicians accountable for clearly anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-American ideas, actions, and direction.
The problem with libertarians, is we live by our creed, and by not meddling, leaving liberals and others to do as they please, and by compromising in order to get back to our businesses and lives. The result is that we have let a small minority of leftists control and set the direction of the country. We must to be effective start meddling, start telling people that the idea of equality of outcome will result in countries like Korea where everybody is equally poor, instead of our country where even the poor have color TV, cars, AC, indoor plumbing, and an obesity problem. Statism, as the left continuously promotes, has never worked, will never work, and we change our ways and meddle in the lives of our fellow Americans, if we want to succeed. Sorry America it’s time for Less not More Government.
The statists whether Demican or Republicrat will ignore all the caustic consequences of the policies of the liberal welfare state. Libertarians will be branded as selfish, racist, or worse. Statists will name their policies “compassionate conservatism”, or “social justice,” but the sad truth is welfare state policies lead to moral decay and narcissism. Compare the moral standards of those who love liberty and those who want a welfare stare. It is clear that those who want a welfare state, hate individual rights, hate property rights, hate any moral standards, hate individual responsibility, and all the traditional standards of western civilization, but it’s taboo to talk about that.
The good news is there is a paradigm shift, as John Stossel noted in his December 28, 2011 column, “This spring, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan presented a timid plan that would have slowed the growth of government slightly. Even Republicans went bonkers. Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering."
But now, just seven months later, the country's in a different place. Newt's apologized. Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans praise Ryan's plan. The Republican Study Committee wants to go further. Now Ryan agrees that his plan was "mild." Today he says he'd go farther.“
When you hear anybody tell you that the people must be regulated, they are not smart enough, or too foolish, to be left to their own decisions, and that the government must “protect” the people for their own good, be loud and proclaim that “We the People” not some ruling elite, have the power and authority. That we established a government, not to supply everybody’s needs but one limited to do only what we’ve authorized it to do. We must take back our government and restrict it to only those functions we originally granted it. Otherwise we will have an unlimited government that has the ability and authority to dictate every aspect of our lives, from what we eat, to where we live, to what we read, and what we can say. A government that has the power to supply every need, has the power to take every liberty.
We are clearly seeing a libertarian shift in American politics, maybe seeing the logical consequences of liberal policies, as clearly demonstrated in Greece’s riots, have helped America realize what happens when liberty is replaced with statism. Now is the time for Libertarians to be heard, to meddle, to get involved. The alternative is the destruction of our country and way of live in exchange for living at the hands of the ruling elite. Hopefully we as a party can take advantage of this shift, and elect libertarians.
The fundamental reason libertarians don’t win a lot of elections is not based on their ideology, but based on the fact that they live what the preach. Studies show that libertarians are as individuals more charitable than conservatives and liberals. Economically, philosophically, and morally, libertarian ideas have been proven to be what is best for the vast majority of people. The fundamental problem libertarians have is that they are good libertarians. They actually live by the standard of “live and let live.” The other basic principle is the one that says “effort should be rewarded as much as possible.”
The general desire to be left alone and to leave others alone, to oppose aggression against others, to allow others to succeed or not succeed based upon their own effort, and to voluntarily help your neighbor as you best see fit, are the fundamentals of libertarian ideology. Good Libertarians don’t seek power, nor to control others, as a result libertarians make bad politicians.
Libertarians are not demanding, which explains our political weakness. Self reliance, responsibility, the ability to not meddle in other’s affairs, and the live-and-let-live independence and the respect for the rights of others that permeate libertarian political positions are also considered to be the characteristics of emotionally mature adults. In general grownups content to live our own lives and willing to let others do the same? Meddling in the affairs of others, is synonymous with teen-age drama and angst, and is incompatible with grown-up (libertarian) behavior. Thus Libertarians by their very nature are not political animals.
Now liberals, statists, socialists, communists, etc, all have third grade mentality on fairness, thus love to meddle. Every desire becomes a right, every difference becomes a cause, and they cannot resist creating a new law, regulation, or dictate to “fix” things. Though outnumbered by a vast majority (liberals make up only 20% of the US population), they have learned to use the maturity of grown-ups who prefer not to meddle against liberty. They know that businesses and governments will make concessions to radical demands to avoid a scene and get back to business. They accumulate these capitulations over time to increase their power.
The TEA Party’s libertarian message, defensive in nature, basically a message of “Stop Spending” and “Leave Us Alone” has been morphed and distorted by Republicans, who are just statists with a dedication to big business not liberty. That defensive message won’t win elections. Just as in sports, it is offense, not defense that scores points. It’s hard to make a basket while defending your own hoop.
The liberal minority dominates American politics because liberals have a strategy for eroding liberty and promoting statism. Libertarians do not have an effective strategy of promoting liberty. Where is the libertarian strategy to ensure that every high-school student in America can give a spirited defense of liberty or free enterprise? Our defense has resulted in a win for leftists who have virtually removed the Declaration of Independence for our schools. Where is the libertarian strategy to ensure that immigrants assimilate and believe in liberty over socialism? There is no coherent strategy to return our culture to its libertarian roots.
We have failed to do as our founding fathers exhorted us to do. We have not been vigilant to protect liberty. Unless we actively work at and convert the main stream media to believing in liberty not statism, we are lost. The message of liberty cannot stand if we continue to “live and let live” and no longer hold the press and our politicians accountable for clearly anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-American ideas, actions, and direction.
The problem with libertarians, is we live by our creed, and by not meddling, leaving liberals and others to do as they please, and by compromising in order to get back to our businesses and lives. The result is that we have let a small minority of leftists control and set the direction of the country. We must to be effective start meddling, start telling people that the idea of equality of outcome will result in countries like Korea where everybody is equally poor, instead of our country where even the poor have color TV, cars, AC, indoor plumbing, and an obesity problem. Statism, as the left continuously promotes, has never worked, will never work, and we change our ways and meddle in the lives of our fellow Americans, if we want to succeed. Sorry America it’s time for Less not More Government.
The statists whether Demican or Republicrat will ignore all the caustic consequences of the policies of the liberal welfare state. Libertarians will be branded as selfish, racist, or worse. Statists will name their policies “compassionate conservatism”, or “social justice,” but the sad truth is welfare state policies lead to moral decay and narcissism. Compare the moral standards of those who love liberty and those who want a welfare stare. It is clear that those who want a welfare state, hate individual rights, hate property rights, hate any moral standards, hate individual responsibility, and all the traditional standards of western civilization, but it’s taboo to talk about that.
The good news is there is a paradigm shift, as John Stossel noted in his December 28, 2011 column, “This spring, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan presented a timid plan that would have slowed the growth of government slightly. Even Republicans went bonkers. Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering."
But now, just seven months later, the country's in a different place. Newt's apologized. Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans praise Ryan's plan. The Republican Study Committee wants to go further. Now Ryan agrees that his plan was "mild." Today he says he'd go farther.“
When you hear anybody tell you that the people must be regulated, they are not smart enough, or too foolish, to be left to their own decisions, and that the government must “protect” the people for their own good, be loud and proclaim that “We the People” not some ruling elite, have the power and authority. That we established a government, not to supply everybody’s needs but one limited to do only what we’ve authorized it to do. We must take back our government and restrict it to only those functions we originally granted it. Otherwise we will have an unlimited government that has the ability and authority to dictate every aspect of our lives, from what we eat, to where we live, to what we read, and what we can say. A government that has the power to supply every need, has the power to take every liberty.
We are clearly seeing a libertarian shift in American politics, maybe seeing the logical consequences of liberal policies, as clearly demonstrated in Greece’s riots, have helped America realize what happens when liberty is replaced with statism. Now is the time for Libertarians to be heard, to meddle, to get involved. The alternative is the destruction of our country and way of live in exchange for living at the hands of the ruling elite. Hopefully we as a party can take advantage of this shift, and elect libertarians.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Uncivil Discourse? Bolderdash!
By Tom Rhodes, 8/19/2011
I hear and read cries of people being “tired” of all this partisanship. The president, the press, and pundits claiming that “Never Before has the house/senate been so partisan, so uncivil, yada yada yada.” This is unmitigated Bolderdash. Today’s politicians are virtual bastions of etiquette, following in the footsteps of Emily Post compared to the speech and actions in the History of US Legislative and presidential discourse.
First consider the death of one of our most famous forefathers, Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, the Al Gore of his day, lost the US presidential election in 1800 by a handful of votes. Thomas Jefferson was elected instead and made his defeated opponent Vice President. Burr blamed his defeat on Alexander Hamilton, one of the great figures of the American Revolution. Hamilton – a close friend of Washington, co-framer of the constitution and a former head of the army – had successfully persuaded a tied electoral college to swing behind Jefferson. so when Vice President Burr discovered a few years later that Hamilton had bad-mouthed him in a later, he issued an instant challenge. Hamilton – by then retired from politics – was opposed to dueling on moral and religious grounds, but the duty of honor was greater and so, on July 11, 1804, both men crossed the River Hudson with their seconds to what is now New Jersey. Burr was determined to shot his rival dead, which he did. Hamilton, as he was shot, discharged his own pistol into the ground. There was huge public revulsion at the death of such a popular figure and the Vice President found himself on the receiving end of some seriously bad headlines. He was deprived of his New York citizenship and forced in to hiding. In later years, he was shunned by society and died destitute n Staten Island in 1836.
Although he is ranting and raving a lot, I don’t see Al Gore challenging Dick Chaney or anybody else to a duel, much less killing those who words caused him political harm.
Now let’s consider the legislature, specifically that noble and dignified body the US Senate. On May 19, 1856, Republican Senator Charles Sumner gave his famous "Crime Against Kansas" speech in the well of the Senate. In his over three hour oration, Sumner attack Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, both pro-slavery. His attack on Butler was especially harsh and made fun of the Senator's speech defect.
Two days later, fellow senator, Democrat Preston Brooks, nephew of Congressman Butler, approached Sumner while the latter was writing at his desk in the Senate chamber. The room was nearly empty, but there were enough people present that an accurate account of what happened could later be assembled. Brooks approached the sitting Senator and said "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." With that, he began beating Sumner on the head with his heavy cane, which was topped with a gold head. Sumner could not rise up as his desk was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued to beat him until Sumner tore the desk from the floor and staggered up the aisle away from his attacker, blinded by his own blood. He collapsed in the middle of the aisle, at which time Brooks continued his attack until his cane broke in two. Several senators tried to intercede on Sumner's behalf, but Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina, an ally of Brooks, stood by the men with a pistol drawn and shouted "Let them be!"
Senator Sumner took three years to recover from his wounds. The Massachusetts General Court reelected him in November 1856 anyway, believing that his vacant chair in the Senate chamber served as a powerful symbol of free speech and resistance to slavery. Congressman Brooks became sort of a hero in the South, a symbol of that area's resistance to perceived bullying from the North. Northerners were outraged. Senator Sumner, elected to his seat as a Republican, became a symbol for anti-slavery forces. Congressman Brooks was subject to an expulsion vote in the House of Representatives that did not pass, but nonetheless gave up his seat for the rest of his term. The people of South Caroline promptly re-elected him at the next election. In honor of Brooks, Pierceville, a small Florida town located near the site of Ft. Desoto, changed it's name to Brooksville. Both men remained in their offices for the rest of their lives.
Simply put, politician’s calls for more civility are just political drama, used to avoid having to answer tough questions. What today is called uncivil discourse is milquetoast compared to our history. What we need are not politicians who won't say what they think, and provide us safe middle of the road platitudes. We need bold politicians who are not affraid to say what they believe, stand up to those whom they don't agree, and let the votes fall where they will. We have a man who running for president right now who has remained stedfast in his beliefs, and not affraid to tell not only the other party but his own party what he believes. That's Ron Paul.
I hear and read cries of people being “tired” of all this partisanship. The president, the press, and pundits claiming that “Never Before has the house/senate been so partisan, so uncivil, yada yada yada.” This is unmitigated Bolderdash. Today’s politicians are virtual bastions of etiquette, following in the footsteps of Emily Post compared to the speech and actions in the History of US Legislative and presidential discourse.
First consider the death of one of our most famous forefathers, Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, the Al Gore of his day, lost the US presidential election in 1800 by a handful of votes. Thomas Jefferson was elected instead and made his defeated opponent Vice President. Burr blamed his defeat on Alexander Hamilton, one of the great figures of the American Revolution. Hamilton – a close friend of Washington, co-framer of the constitution and a former head of the army – had successfully persuaded a tied electoral college to swing behind Jefferson. so when Vice President Burr discovered a few years later that Hamilton had bad-mouthed him in a later, he issued an instant challenge. Hamilton – by then retired from politics – was opposed to dueling on moral and religious grounds, but the duty of honor was greater and so, on July 11, 1804, both men crossed the River Hudson with their seconds to what is now New Jersey. Burr was determined to shot his rival dead, which he did. Hamilton, as he was shot, discharged his own pistol into the ground. There was huge public revulsion at the death of such a popular figure and the Vice President found himself on the receiving end of some seriously bad headlines. He was deprived of his New York citizenship and forced in to hiding. In later years, he was shunned by society and died destitute n Staten Island in 1836.
Although he is ranting and raving a lot, I don’t see Al Gore challenging Dick Chaney or anybody else to a duel, much less killing those who words caused him political harm.
Now let’s consider the legislature, specifically that noble and dignified body the US Senate. On May 19, 1856, Republican Senator Charles Sumner gave his famous "Crime Against Kansas" speech in the well of the Senate. In his over three hour oration, Sumner attack Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, both pro-slavery. His attack on Butler was especially harsh and made fun of the Senator's speech defect.
Two days later, fellow senator, Democrat Preston Brooks, nephew of Congressman Butler, approached Sumner while the latter was writing at his desk in the Senate chamber. The room was nearly empty, but there were enough people present that an accurate account of what happened could later be assembled. Brooks approached the sitting Senator and said "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." With that, he began beating Sumner on the head with his heavy cane, which was topped with a gold head. Sumner could not rise up as his desk was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued to beat him until Sumner tore the desk from the floor and staggered up the aisle away from his attacker, blinded by his own blood. He collapsed in the middle of the aisle, at which time Brooks continued his attack until his cane broke in two. Several senators tried to intercede on Sumner's behalf, but Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina, an ally of Brooks, stood by the men with a pistol drawn and shouted "Let them be!"
Senator Sumner took three years to recover from his wounds. The Massachusetts General Court reelected him in November 1856 anyway, believing that his vacant chair in the Senate chamber served as a powerful symbol of free speech and resistance to slavery. Congressman Brooks became sort of a hero in the South, a symbol of that area's resistance to perceived bullying from the North. Northerners were outraged. Senator Sumner, elected to his seat as a Republican, became a symbol for anti-slavery forces. Congressman Brooks was subject to an expulsion vote in the House of Representatives that did not pass, but nonetheless gave up his seat for the rest of his term. The people of South Caroline promptly re-elected him at the next election. In honor of Brooks, Pierceville, a small Florida town located near the site of Ft. Desoto, changed it's name to Brooksville. Both men remained in their offices for the rest of their lives.
Simply put, politician’s calls for more civility are just political drama, used to avoid having to answer tough questions. What today is called uncivil discourse is milquetoast compared to our history. What we need are not politicians who won't say what they think, and provide us safe middle of the road platitudes. We need bold politicians who are not affraid to say what they believe, stand up to those whom they don't agree, and let the votes fall where they will. We have a man who running for president right now who has remained stedfast in his beliefs, and not affraid to tell not only the other party but his own party what he believes. That's Ron Paul.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Luddites
Typical liberal Luddite – in the true historic meaning of the term - Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) declared that the Apple iPad was responsible for unemployment. In a impassioned declaration supporting bookmakers and publishers he said, "Now Borders is closing stores because why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine. What becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? What becomes of bookstores and libraries and all of the jobs associated with paper?"
Imagine if Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) was a political leader in the mid 15-th Century, he probably would have been working for the Church as it had all the power. His impassioned declaration would have read, "Now the monastery is closing because why do you need to have copyists? Why do you need to go to the Church or Town Square? Buy an Bible, or buy one of Luther’s books and read it yourself. What becomes of copyists, monks, Just think of all the quill maker jobs. What will the woodcarvers and their suppliers do?"
In the mid-15th century Johannes Gutenberg invented a mechanical way of making books. This was the first example of mass book production. Before the invention of printing, multiple copies of a manuscript had to be made by hand, a laborious task that could take many years. Later books were produced by and for the Church using the process of wood engraving. This required the craftsman to cut away the background, leaving the area to be printed raised. This process applied to both text and illustrations and was extremely time-consuming. When a page was complete, often comprising a number of blocks joined together, it would be inked and a sheet of paper was then pressed over it for an imprint. The susceptibility of wood to the elements gave such blocks a limited lifespan.
The result of Gutenberg’s invention was something called the Reformation. Without the printing press, the ideas of Luther, and later Calvin, would have been easily suppressed by Rome. The number of people who could read would have remained minimal, and the cost of creating a Library would have remained out of the reach of most small cities and villages. The printing press, and the generosity of industrialists like Carnegie, implementing new technology, has led to virtually every small town in the USA having a library, where the people could for free go and read books. Libraries cost the community, but the cost is minimal compared to the volume of information they provide. To use a library a person must take time, spend money on traveling, and provides limited access due to library hours, and is limited to the books on hand of a specific library. To create bound paper books uses large amounts of physical resources, paper, fuel, printing presses, etc. The printing press and resultant surge in libraries was a huge boon for all of society, but not so good for quill makers, wood carvers, and copyists, and hurt the control of the ruling elite.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) is typical of liberals and socialists. They support unions who uniformly resist technological advances. In the US we make more automobiles than ever before. Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, KIA, Nissan, Subaru, and Telsa, produce a larger number of cars of better quality in the USA than ever before and with just a fraction of the people it used to take. One of the prime reasons Detroit is just a shadow of itself is because the unions gained significant power and authority over law makers and were able to stop car companies from modernizing because it would eliminate union jobs. The unions became so strong that if technology resulted in the elimination of a position on the assembly line the car company in Detroit had to keep the person employed, and literally had to pay employees to sit in a room and do nothing. This was a huge contributor to why they moved and built their new facilities anywhere but Detroit and Michigan. The Luddite resistance to technological advances was a major contributor to the fall of Detroit.
EBook readers are not new, originally called Cyber-Readers or Cybooks, they have been available for over a decade. It’s just taken a few years for them to be accepted by the public. Personally I’ve been surfing the web, editing documents, watching movies, and reading eBooks on my Palm TX for over 5 years. Although the interface is not as glitzy as the Ipad or new Android tablets, Apple and Google are just now producing products with the functionally, including reading eBooks, that the Palm TX has had since 2005. From a single point of origin, Mainz, Germany, printing spread within several decades to over two hundred cities in a dozen European countries. By 1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million volumes. In about 50 years more books were produced then in all of human history before. It created the Publishing industry.
Today, like the printing press, eBooks offer even greater access to information massively less cost. The Gutenberg Project now has over 40,000 eBooks available in virtually any electronic format at no cost. Anybody with a Nook, Kindle, Palm, Ipad, Iphone, or other similar device has a huge world of information sitting in their hands. The benefits in savings in material resources and availability of knowledge to everybody at such minimal costs can only benefit society. Visit The Gutenberg Project or new models of publishing like that offered by Baen to see what eBooks have to offer, even for free. With the volume of “free” books available you would think that book sales would drop. In reality antique bound paper type book sales are down, but the sale eBooks which now out sell traditional books have more than made up the difference. Now for the price of three new hardback books, you can have instant access to tens of thousands of books for free.
The explosion of relatively inexpensive information that Gutenberg ushered in changed the world. EBooks, and the explosion of inexpensive information that hand held tablets, smart phones and the internet have made possible, are again changing the world. Changes in the way and the ease in which people can get information severally hamper the control ruling that elite have over the masses. Hillary Clinton famously remarked that their needed to be some kind of “gatekeeper” on news. She like the ruling elite in the past, want the rulers to have control over what and how the masses receive information.
What I have experienced is that that in the month after finally convincing my 19yr old son to read an eBook on my Palm T|X, he read 6 novels. I wanted my Palm back, so I gave him a Nook for his birthday. Since then the sound of the TV and video games is no longer the dominant noise in the house. The purchase of a cover for the Nook that gives it the “feel” of a real book actually increased its use. Raised in a reading house my sons almost always are reading a book or two, but the ease of use and ability to read a chapter or two before purchasing a eBook has dramatically expanded both the volume and variety of reading. My son’s old eight to ten book a year habit, is now a 30 to 40 book a year habit. His disposable income for reading has not increased, but his access to reading has. He’s found authors like Cory Doctorow, and others who are generally not available in either the library, and seldom in the big book stores. Doctorow has shown a model for publishing where literally giving his books away has resulted in significant sales increases of his books. His libertarian methodology of voluntary exchange without government or big business control of the transactions is a thorn in government and big business attempts to control who and what get’s published.
In 1980, prior to the internet, there is a book written by Bruce Bethke, that literally coined a name for an entire genre of books, titled “Cyberpunk.” In that era, publishers controlled what people could read, and what could be printed. This novel was purchased by a publisher via an exclusive contract which forbid Bethke from selling the novel to any other publisher. The publisher decided to not release the novel, causing several years of legal battles over the rights to the book. Bethke has a downloadable version of the novel available on his website. This is an example of how technology has taken control away from the ruling elite, in this case Publishers.
I find it odd that Democrats and liberals in general often refer to conservatives as Luddites. The behavior of liberals is clearly more Luddite than any other group. The Luddite socialism that dominates the Democratic Party is inherently selfish. It requires the rest of us have less and pay more, so particular individuals may continue to make money from old technology. They want the power to determine what technology the people are allowed to adopt. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his Washington brethren, think that artificially keeping the price of books and other information high to protect the jobs of publishers and printers is better for the people. If Washington Politicians truly cared about the people, they'd worry about the millions who like their eBook readers rather than the thousands who wield clubs, looking to smash the "infernal" machines. Never mind the new jobs of the people who make eBook readers, overpriced eBook covers, lights, and accessories.
Information technology is surpassing the ruling elite’s ability to control the people. Personally I believe that the Democrats are against modern eBooks and internet technologies because it severely limits how they can control the information the masses receive, and the Republicans won’t fight them on this because they are against eBooks and similar information technologies because these new technologies limit the profit they can make from selling information.
Imagine if Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) was a political leader in the mid 15-th Century, he probably would have been working for the Church as it had all the power. His impassioned declaration would have read, "Now the monastery is closing because why do you need to have copyists? Why do you need to go to the Church or Town Square? Buy an Bible, or buy one of Luther’s books and read it yourself. What becomes of copyists, monks, Just think of all the quill maker jobs. What will the woodcarvers and their suppliers do?"
In the mid-15th century Johannes Gutenberg invented a mechanical way of making books. This was the first example of mass book production. Before the invention of printing, multiple copies of a manuscript had to be made by hand, a laborious task that could take many years. Later books were produced by and for the Church using the process of wood engraving. This required the craftsman to cut away the background, leaving the area to be printed raised. This process applied to both text and illustrations and was extremely time-consuming. When a page was complete, often comprising a number of blocks joined together, it would be inked and a sheet of paper was then pressed over it for an imprint. The susceptibility of wood to the elements gave such blocks a limited lifespan.
The result of Gutenberg’s invention was something called the Reformation. Without the printing press, the ideas of Luther, and later Calvin, would have been easily suppressed by Rome. The number of people who could read would have remained minimal, and the cost of creating a Library would have remained out of the reach of most small cities and villages. The printing press, and the generosity of industrialists like Carnegie, implementing new technology, has led to virtually every small town in the USA having a library, where the people could for free go and read books. Libraries cost the community, but the cost is minimal compared to the volume of information they provide. To use a library a person must take time, spend money on traveling, and provides limited access due to library hours, and is limited to the books on hand of a specific library. To create bound paper books uses large amounts of physical resources, paper, fuel, printing presses, etc. The printing press and resultant surge in libraries was a huge boon for all of society, but not so good for quill makers, wood carvers, and copyists, and hurt the control of the ruling elite.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) is typical of liberals and socialists. They support unions who uniformly resist technological advances. In the US we make more automobiles than ever before. Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, KIA, Nissan, Subaru, and Telsa, produce a larger number of cars of better quality in the USA than ever before and with just a fraction of the people it used to take. One of the prime reasons Detroit is just a shadow of itself is because the unions gained significant power and authority over law makers and were able to stop car companies from modernizing because it would eliminate union jobs. The unions became so strong that if technology resulted in the elimination of a position on the assembly line the car company in Detroit had to keep the person employed, and literally had to pay employees to sit in a room and do nothing. This was a huge contributor to why they moved and built their new facilities anywhere but Detroit and Michigan. The Luddite resistance to technological advances was a major contributor to the fall of Detroit.
EBook readers are not new, originally called Cyber-Readers or Cybooks, they have been available for over a decade. It’s just taken a few years for them to be accepted by the public. Personally I’ve been surfing the web, editing documents, watching movies, and reading eBooks on my Palm TX for over 5 years. Although the interface is not as glitzy as the Ipad or new Android tablets, Apple and Google are just now producing products with the functionally, including reading eBooks, that the Palm TX has had since 2005. From a single point of origin, Mainz, Germany, printing spread within several decades to over two hundred cities in a dozen European countries. By 1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million volumes. In about 50 years more books were produced then in all of human history before. It created the Publishing industry.
Today, like the printing press, eBooks offer even greater access to information massively less cost. The Gutenberg Project now has over 40,000 eBooks available in virtually any electronic format at no cost. Anybody with a Nook, Kindle, Palm, Ipad, Iphone, or other similar device has a huge world of information sitting in their hands. The benefits in savings in material resources and availability of knowledge to everybody at such minimal costs can only benefit society. Visit The Gutenberg Project or new models of publishing like that offered by Baen to see what eBooks have to offer, even for free. With the volume of “free” books available you would think that book sales would drop. In reality antique bound paper type book sales are down, but the sale eBooks which now out sell traditional books have more than made up the difference. Now for the price of three new hardback books, you can have instant access to tens of thousands of books for free.
The explosion of relatively inexpensive information that Gutenberg ushered in changed the world. EBooks, and the explosion of inexpensive information that hand held tablets, smart phones and the internet have made possible, are again changing the world. Changes in the way and the ease in which people can get information severally hamper the control ruling that elite have over the masses. Hillary Clinton famously remarked that their needed to be some kind of “gatekeeper” on news. She like the ruling elite in the past, want the rulers to have control over what and how the masses receive information.
What I have experienced is that that in the month after finally convincing my 19yr old son to read an eBook on my Palm T|X, he read 6 novels. I wanted my Palm back, so I gave him a Nook for his birthday. Since then the sound of the TV and video games is no longer the dominant noise in the house. The purchase of a cover for the Nook that gives it the “feel” of a real book actually increased its use. Raised in a reading house my sons almost always are reading a book or two, but the ease of use and ability to read a chapter or two before purchasing a eBook has dramatically expanded both the volume and variety of reading. My son’s old eight to ten book a year habit, is now a 30 to 40 book a year habit. His disposable income for reading has not increased, but his access to reading has. He’s found authors like Cory Doctorow, and others who are generally not available in either the library, and seldom in the big book stores. Doctorow has shown a model for publishing where literally giving his books away has resulted in significant sales increases of his books. His libertarian methodology of voluntary exchange without government or big business control of the transactions is a thorn in government and big business attempts to control who and what get’s published.
In 1980, prior to the internet, there is a book written by Bruce Bethke, that literally coined a name for an entire genre of books, titled “Cyberpunk.” In that era, publishers controlled what people could read, and what could be printed. This novel was purchased by a publisher via an exclusive contract which forbid Bethke from selling the novel to any other publisher. The publisher decided to not release the novel, causing several years of legal battles over the rights to the book. Bethke has a downloadable version of the novel available on his website. This is an example of how technology has taken control away from the ruling elite, in this case Publishers.
I find it odd that Democrats and liberals in general often refer to conservatives as Luddites. The behavior of liberals is clearly more Luddite than any other group. The Luddite socialism that dominates the Democratic Party is inherently selfish. It requires the rest of us have less and pay more, so particular individuals may continue to make money from old technology. They want the power to determine what technology the people are allowed to adopt. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his Washington brethren, think that artificially keeping the price of books and other information high to protect the jobs of publishers and printers is better for the people. If Washington Politicians truly cared about the people, they'd worry about the millions who like their eBook readers rather than the thousands who wield clubs, looking to smash the "infernal" machines. Never mind the new jobs of the people who make eBook readers, overpriced eBook covers, lights, and accessories.
Information technology is surpassing the ruling elite’s ability to control the people. Personally I believe that the Democrats are against modern eBooks and internet technologies because it severely limits how they can control the information the masses receive, and the Republicans won’t fight them on this because they are against eBooks and similar information technologies because these new technologies limit the profit they can make from selling information.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Orlando Straw Poll Results
On Saturday, February 13th, the Orlando Tea Party hosted a Candidate Hob Nob and Straw Poll at Orlando City Hall. The straw poll was administered by the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office with actual ballots and vote scanning machines. The hosts of the ‘Tea Party Patriots Live’ radio show and the rest of the volunteer organizers would like to congratulate the winners of the straw poll. You can see the results of Yesterday’s Straw Poll in Orlando HERE
The Results are Interesting to say the least.
For Governor LP Candidate John Wayne Smith received 13% more of the vote than the highest ranking Democrat.
In the US Senate Race LP Candidate Alex Snitker received 17% more of the vote than Charlie Christ. It may be early but I think you can stick a fork in Christ. Rubio’s 66.6% showing indicates that he may be unstoppable.
Now the bad news, the Democrats have dismissed the entire “Tea Party” movement, I believe that they have done this at their own peril. The Tea Party represents the bulk of independent voters, and although the republicans are making a strong attempt to take it over, the fact that an unknown New Port Richey newcomer like Alex Snitker can muster 22% of the vote for US senate, and more than 21% more of the vote than the highest polled Democrat speaks volumes.
There is a political revolution going on the poll numbers don’t bode well for the “in” crowd.
The Results are Interesting to say the least.
For Governor LP Candidate John Wayne Smith received 13% more of the vote than the highest ranking Democrat.
In the US Senate Race LP Candidate Alex Snitker received 17% more of the vote than Charlie Christ. It may be early but I think you can stick a fork in Christ. Rubio’s 66.6% showing indicates that he may be unstoppable.
Now the bad news, the Democrats have dismissed the entire “Tea Party” movement, I believe that they have done this at their own peril. The Tea Party represents the bulk of independent voters, and although the republicans are making a strong attempt to take it over, the fact that an unknown New Port Richey newcomer like Alex Snitker can muster 22% of the vote for US senate, and more than 21% more of the vote than the highest polled Democrat speaks volumes.
There is a political revolution going on the poll numbers don’t bode well for the “in” crowd.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Why is this news?
I just don't get it, Obama calls to and congratulates a newly elected mayor of a major city, and leaves a voice mail.
The voice mail read as follows:
That’s a nice message, and appropriate for the newly elected mayor to Houston. No big deal. This is part of what the President should do; especially if the Mayor is a member of his own party.
The whole thing should be one big Yawn, and not worth a blip in anybody's news room, nor even a blip on Obama's radar screen. Why then did the Obama administration became irritated and after the voicemail of President Obama congratulating her on her election victory was leaked on YouTube. The new mayor said she received a curt call from someone in the White House wanting to know how the president's voicemail got up on YouTube, and that the president’s communications should remain private.
I think the new Houston Mayor, Annise Parker, should be proud of her victory, and sharing the congratulation she received from the POTUS with her constituents is wholly acceptable conduct. If she didn’t post it, and some staffer did, it is still wholly acceptable conduct. The POTUS called to congratulate her, how cool, is that. I know if I was called and congratulated by the POTUS, I’d be telling everybody and I don’t even like the man. If the president had not wanted the well worded congratulations to be heard or kept private, he shouldn’t have put them in the voice mail to a publicly elected official.
The only thing remotely newsworthy is the fact that the Obama administration was upset about it being posted to YouTube. The message Obama gave was a nice, apolitical, benign, pleasant, congratulatory, short and to the point, message. Why would he or anybody in his administration care if it was made public?
You don’t think it’s because Annise Parker is openly gay?
The voice mail read as follows:
This is President Barack Obama. I'm just calling to congratulate you on an extraordinary victory – a victory for the people of Houston as well as for yourself. I think you're going to be just a great mayor, so hopefully we'll get a chance to see each other soon, or talk. But I want to let you know that we're watching and very proud. Bye-bye.
That’s a nice message, and appropriate for the newly elected mayor to Houston. No big deal. This is part of what the President should do; especially if the Mayor is a member of his own party.
The whole thing should be one big Yawn, and not worth a blip in anybody's news room, nor even a blip on Obama's radar screen. Why then did the Obama administration became irritated and after the voicemail of President Obama congratulating her on her election victory was leaked on YouTube. The new mayor said she received a curt call from someone in the White House wanting to know how the president's voicemail got up on YouTube, and that the president’s communications should remain private.
I think the new Houston Mayor, Annise Parker, should be proud of her victory, and sharing the congratulation she received from the POTUS with her constituents is wholly acceptable conduct. If she didn’t post it, and some staffer did, it is still wholly acceptable conduct. The POTUS called to congratulate her, how cool, is that. I know if I was called and congratulated by the POTUS, I’d be telling everybody and I don’t even like the man. If the president had not wanted the well worded congratulations to be heard or kept private, he shouldn’t have put them in the voice mail to a publicly elected official.
The only thing remotely newsworthy is the fact that the Obama administration was upset about it being posted to YouTube. The message Obama gave was a nice, apolitical, benign, pleasant, congratulatory, short and to the point, message. Why would he or anybody in his administration care if it was made public?
You don’t think it’s because Annise Parker is openly gay?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Are All Politicians Rude Assholes
I saw my boy off at the deployment ceremony at the Armory in Pinellas Park yesterday. The brigade was formed up and ready exactly 10 min before the official start time. The official ceremony start time comes and goes, and there are 250 men and women standing at parade rest, waiting for the start of what is supposed to be a 15 minute ceremony to thank their friends and family for their support, and see them off to Ft. Hood in preparation for Deployment in Kuwait. They and the people at the ceremony expect the introduction and acknowledgement of current and past leaders, and few quick words, a prayer, the to be released to enjoy the evening before deploying for a Year.
But nothing happens, and they are standing there waiting… standing and waiting…
Then a round 15 min past the hour, we guests are asked to stand for the entrance of the dignitaries. Crap we have been waiting for two political hacks who changed their schedules to be here, Gov. Christ and Rep. Young. They each get speech time added to the program. Not long by political speech standards but they did add around 25 min to the ceremony schedule. Then when it was all over Christ did “the inspect the troops thing,” for a photo op, just like in a B movie. Although when Donald Southerland did it in the classic movie, The Dirty Dozen, he came off as smarter and more genuine that Charlie Christ did.
For around 10 seconds of camera time Christ kept 250 soldiers standing at attention or parade rest for an additional 45 min. That’s just plan rude. I didn’t hear any complaints from the soldiers, they wouldn’t, but I did note that their commanders cut their speeches to 2 or 3 min max. After listening to the long winded politicians, and did everything they could to move things along for the troops, those soldiers do appear to have good officers. I’m confident that none of those soldiers standing and waiting gave a rat’s ass, for the words Christ had to offer.
We were told, that he had to change his plans to be here, and words to the effect that we were all honored by his presence. Maybe if he’d showed some humility and apologized for delaying and changing the plans, and recognizing the value of the soldiers and peoples time and effort, he would have been appreciated, instead Christ showed the disregard for the time and plans, of the soldiers, officers, families, and friends, and guests at the deployment ceremony that is typical of politicians who act like they’re some kind of elite who should be honored and revered. All he did was once again demonstrate that he like most politicians are just rude self aggrandizing assholes.
The people of Tampa Bay however are not. I took my son and his girlfriend to his favorite restaurant, The Cheesecake Factory, for dinner. He was in uniform, and like a whole lot of other soldiers last night his money was no good in Tampa Bay. Our entire meal was paid for by an anonymous person, and it seemed everybody knew he was deploying, and was wishing him well. The entire community demonstrated that they appreciate our men and women of the armed services. Thank you Tampa Bay!!!
But nothing happens, and they are standing there waiting… standing and waiting…
Then a round 15 min past the hour, we guests are asked to stand for the entrance of the dignitaries. Crap we have been waiting for two political hacks who changed their schedules to be here, Gov. Christ and Rep. Young. They each get speech time added to the program. Not long by political speech standards but they did add around 25 min to the ceremony schedule. Then when it was all over Christ did “the inspect the troops thing,” for a photo op, just like in a B movie. Although when Donald Southerland did it in the classic movie, The Dirty Dozen, he came off as smarter and more genuine that Charlie Christ did.
For around 10 seconds of camera time Christ kept 250 soldiers standing at attention or parade rest for an additional 45 min. That’s just plan rude. I didn’t hear any complaints from the soldiers, they wouldn’t, but I did note that their commanders cut their speeches to 2 or 3 min max. After listening to the long winded politicians, and did everything they could to move things along for the troops, those soldiers do appear to have good officers. I’m confident that none of those soldiers standing and waiting gave a rat’s ass, for the words Christ had to offer.
We were told, that he had to change his plans to be here, and words to the effect that we were all honored by his presence. Maybe if he’d showed some humility and apologized for delaying and changing the plans, and recognizing the value of the soldiers and peoples time and effort, he would have been appreciated, instead Christ showed the disregard for the time and plans, of the soldiers, officers, families, and friends, and guests at the deployment ceremony that is typical of politicians who act like they’re some kind of elite who should be honored and revered. All he did was once again demonstrate that he like most politicians are just rude self aggrandizing assholes.
The people of Tampa Bay however are not. I took my son and his girlfriend to his favorite restaurant, The Cheesecake Factory, for dinner. He was in uniform, and like a whole lot of other soldiers last night his money was no good in Tampa Bay. Our entire meal was paid for by an anonymous person, and it seemed everybody knew he was deploying, and was wishing him well. The entire community demonstrated that they appreciate our men and women of the armed services. Thank you Tampa Bay!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
