By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2011
As a word smith George Orwell was a piker compared to Obama. Consider these words from Obama: “… but [if] you are serious about the deficit overall—then part of what you have to look at is unjustifiable spending through the tax code …” The meaning is clear, taking less of the money people earn, is to be considered unjustifiable spending, as if the money was the governments to spend and allowing mere people to keep their earnings is the government graciously “spending” on that citizen. To accept Obama’s premise is to accept that the money American Taxpayers make is the government’s money and not the person who labored to earn it. Obama has clearly said that the government owns your labor, and that merely allowing you to keep the money which you traded your labor to acquire is him spending on you. What is the difference between that and serfdom?
Obama counts what are clearly tax increases, as spending cuts if they are not used for to increase the governments size and expenditures. He wants us to believe that by not borrowing money, and thus not paying more interest, “interest saved” as “spending cuts.” How do you explain a $1Trillion dollar increase in taxes as a $200Billion spending cut, because that is the amount of money saved in interest by not having to borrow that trillion dollars. Orwell would have been amazed at how the actual implementation of the ideas his famous and prophetic novel “1984” espoused.
The press and the government talk about the “rising cost of farm subsidies” real people and reality are that there is not a rising “cost” of farm subsidies, but a rise in spending on farm subsidies. Obama, his administration, and the left leaning press all have a clear objective in using obfuscating words and speech, to fundamentally change America from a land that protects and values individual rights to a land of bigger and bigger centralized government.
History has proven over and over again that centralized power leads inevitably to statism, despotism, and the loss of individual liberty. The Obama administration is installing more bureaucrats with more power and ushered in unprecedented public sector growth. His administration is continually granting more authority to unelected bureaucrats and removing from the congress and hence people, the power to effect and change laws and leadership. Obama has noted that congress, accountable to the people and special interest groups, cannot pass laws and regulations such as “cap and trade” because the people make themselves heard, and the legislature, liking their jobs, does as the people want, not as Obama and the corporate ruling elite would dictate. So rather than convince the people, and congress, he is usurping power bureaucratically doling out power and favors as he sees fit. Despotism through bureaucracy is no less despotic than through a dictator.
The US and its constitution is unlike any other governing body in the world, past or present. Unlike even the current E.U. Constitution the US Constitution is predicated on preserving the liberty of the individual. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states the purpose of our government; saying that it was established by men to protect the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Providing for the needs of the masses, means of monitoring and controlling people, etc. are not the purpose of the US Government, and to the chagrin of Obama, the US Government is severely limited by the US Constitution. The American system of government with its term limits, open primaries, direct elections of representatives, electoral college to force distributed power to all the states, and limits on government power, provide real and historic safeguards for preserving American Liberty. Liberty which many in the world hate, and which millions have chosen, even risking their lives, and the ruling elite find detrimental to increasing their power, is the hallmark of the American Ideal.
America does not always lived up to her ideals. The abomination of slavery and racial segregation were some of America’s historical failures. But even though we didn’t always live up to our ideals our history is clear that we valued and changed to meet and advance towards the founding principles written down by Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and others. The very ideals and principles that were used to establish our government have withstood the test of time. American citizens appreciate the innumerable benefits of our Constitution, and want to preserve the principles enshrined within it. The citizens of the US have begun to fight vigorously against the European socialization of the greatest country in the history of the world. Both parties hate and attack the TEA Party movement. They can’t control it, so demonize it. The growth of the Tea Party isn’t a reaction to the economic slump but to how the ruling elite of both parties have dealt with it. Spending more, expanding government power, helping big banks and business while letting the average Joe fall. The people wanted the and expected the rule of law to apply, even to failed banks, they wanted the Federal Reserve to just reorganize failing banks and stop there, just as they have with past bank failures. Allow those who have excess of the FDIC insured values, suffer, not to tax everybody to cover for the bad decisions of big banks, big government, and big business. If GM and Chrysler couldn’t make it, let them go the way of Ramble, Stutz, and dozens of other US car makers. We expected the government to treat GM like it did American Motors, not ignore the law, and grant favors to those it choose, and thwart those it didn’t.
The TEA Party, represents the average person, not special interests, or groups, its focus is economics but it has come to represent the wide variety of objections to the way things have been going in this country. It’s an amorphous socio-political phenomena like others that appear from time to time. Not a planned orchestrated movement. The ruling elite hate it, and more importantly hate the fact not even its own members are interested in becoming a political party, let alone be absorbed by one of the Big Two. This popular movement doesn't have to deal with problems of party organization, party platforms or party consensus. Its sole purpose is to reduce the power the ruling elite in Washington have over the people. Because Washington hands out favors etc, big business, liberals, corporate cronies, all have a vested interest in the TEA Party going away. It is more a random collection of dissatisfactions than any kind of conspiracy, it would not and could not have come into existence if either of the major parties inspired confidence. Like any vacuum, it will be filled, the TEA Party fills the vacuum created by both parties whose sole purposes are to gain power and protect their crony benefactors. The people are and have spoken, Enough already!!
Last year’s elections were not pro-GOP, they were anti-government. The Hubris of elected leaders earned the thrashing incumbents and the Democrats received at the hands of the people. Current polls indicate that November may see a lot of new faces in Washington, regardless of party, the people have had enough of government. The people are tired of hearing about “increased revenues” and “government investments” from an unquestioning media; these clever Orwellian euphemisms for “More Taxes” and More Spending” and less liberty don’t fool us anymore.
It means equal treatment under the law, a level playing field, etc. Allowing illegal labor to come in to this country and depress wages by expanding the labor market, or rewarding business to move jobs to overseas companies isn’t fair. Wealth redistribution isn’t fair. Contrary to what the ruling elite want to believe, and want the people to believe, the people are not stupid; as eloquently as Obama tries to create terms and words to distract and misinform, the people get it, and have rejected the socialistic Marxist ideology and ranting that he and the corporate cronies he protects are promoting. The People understand that protecting individual liberty will not result in equal outcomes. They want and believe in the founding principles of this country, and realize that the government has created a loaded deck, where big business, unions, big banks, and the big government are protected, and where competition and opportunity for the common man is suppressed; equality under the law is no longer even talked about; rule of law doesn’t apply to government or big business. The Orwellian form our government is headed has been recognized. The TEA Party is the people’s response. We do not accept the premises that the government is everything, owns everything and has rights to our labor and distribute it as they see fit. We will not be fooled by political double speak. We are a sovereign people not serfs. The ideas which Obama expresses, and believes, that the government rules the people and the people labor to serve the government, is completely opposite of why we established a limited republic to unite the states. Government of the people and by the people is not dead, and as such, Obama’s so-called progressive ideas must perish.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Statism vs. Freedom
By Tom Rhodes 8/22/2011
Right now the US is polarized. The political and economic direction that the people in Washington and press are talking about they have not correctly identified. They people in DC, statists, have the press in their pocket and are not addressing the actual sentiment of the American people and the direction the people want to move. They are coaching their responses in degrees of government control while the actual mood of the country is towards freedom not statism. These are the main positions and points of contention in the USA:
More Spending (control of resources by the state) vs. Cutting Spending (control of resources by individual people)
Obamacare (state control) vs. Vouchers and Free Market Medicine (controlled by individual people)
Energy Planning (State Control, heavy regulation) vs Industry/consumer determined energy policy
Targeted tax cuts (State favors) vs broad tax cuts (treat each individual equally)
Dodd-Frank (State Control, more bureaucracy) vs Free markets (individual control)
Higher levels of Regulation (state control) vs Lower levels of regulation (individual responsibility)
More agencies and departments (more State control) vs elimination of agencies and departments (less state control)
The true divide we are seeing is those who want some ruling elite to make their choices for them and eliminate individual responsibility, over the freedom of individuals to make their own choices. Statists don’t want to allow individuals to have freedom, they want to concentrate more control into the hands of fewer people. They do so with the promise to individuals to be “free” from the responsibility and consequences of their choices, in exchange for obedience to the state.
The non-violent way to settle this is with elections. We had such an election in 2010, statists got their but kicked. Freedom loving people declared the want less central planning and less state control. The ruling elite are not happy (nor are the lame stream press). Thinking that this was an anomaly, in Wisconsin the statists tried to retake control through recall elections. The elections were clear and they statists failed. The people want less not more state control. Any pundit or politician telling you otherwise is deluded or a liar. Statists are running scared.
Our government is very scared that they cannot control elections as they have in the past. The explosion in communications makes it harder to control the news people see, and ideas they share. Because of this, and the heavy losses in the last election to people who are not loyal to the state, but are loyal to the people who elected them, Statists are demonizing not just the TEA Party, but any person who argues against more central planning and control. Proof of statist fear can be seen in the recent Homeland Security and FBI announcements to be on the lookout for Christian white males using cash to purchase hurricane and disaster preparedness supplies, self reliant people who do not trust the government as their protector, are potential terrorists. How exactly does the U.S. Department of Homeland Security view terrorists? You can see who the government fears in a new public service announcement that encourages Americans to report "suspicious" behavior to authorities. Watch Here.
The funny thing is that in reality what the government tells us to fear and look out for is not the profile of actual terrorists. Checking the Bombathon 2011 Scorecard , the first 20 days of Ramadan there has been over 100 terror attacks around the world in the name of Islam, with over 450 associated deaths. In the same time period there have been zero attacks and zero deaths in the name of all other religions. Comparing reality to government flyers and video’s it is obvious that the only reasonable explanation is that the government fears the vote self reliant citizens who love freedom more than it fears the bombs and murder by blood thirsty Islamic zealots who favor statism and despise western freedom.
This would explain why statists refer to the TEA Party as a terrorist organization, but won’t call Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organizations. Statists accuse those congressmen who would vote as they promised their constituents terrorists, kidnappers, and worse for using their vote to enact change; change that they hope will move the country away from state control and towards liberty. Statists equate a legal vote to limit the government with real bombs killing innocent people.
None of the polls indicate that more state control is popular, congress is polling at an all time low and the chief statist, Pres. Obama, is bombing out. This is not party specific; the people are rightly blaming, centralized control, and not the Democrats or Republicans directly. Note the massive increase in independent and third party voter registration. We in the Libertarian Party are seeing massive growth, new leadership, and more interest in libertarian ideas they ever in our history. It doesn’t take a genius to see that things like the DoED, with more centralized planning, and statist control of education has failed; if you point this out the statists will attack you as wanting to end education, when the reality is the people want to end central planning of education.
The biggest boom to our economy, ever, was post WWII, when there was massive contraction of the government and centralized control and planning. Reducing central planning, eliminating state controls like rationing, and eliminating thousands of government employees and soldiers, resulted in the greatest economic expansion the world ever saw. If you compare real liberty, standards of living, and quality of life in countries with more vs. less state control, you will find that it is quite clear that the more economic freedom and protection of private property found in a country, the better off the people of that country are. We are seeing the US standard of living drop as we see more central planning; we see the standard of living increase where we see decrease in central planning and control in other countries. The problem is that with more central planning comes more power for statists, power they desire and won’t easily relinquish. Statists, regardless of party, firmly believe that it is better to have state control of the economy and politics at the expense of individual liberty. The simple fact is that less central planning results in more freedom.
What do you support freedom, or statism?
Right now the US is polarized. The political and economic direction that the people in Washington and press are talking about they have not correctly identified. They people in DC, statists, have the press in their pocket and are not addressing the actual sentiment of the American people and the direction the people want to move. They are coaching their responses in degrees of government control while the actual mood of the country is towards freedom not statism. These are the main positions and points of contention in the USA:
The true divide we are seeing is those who want some ruling elite to make their choices for them and eliminate individual responsibility, over the freedom of individuals to make their own choices. Statists don’t want to allow individuals to have freedom, they want to concentrate more control into the hands of fewer people. They do so with the promise to individuals to be “free” from the responsibility and consequences of their choices, in exchange for obedience to the state.
The non-violent way to settle this is with elections. We had such an election in 2010, statists got their but kicked. Freedom loving people declared the want less central planning and less state control. The ruling elite are not happy (nor are the lame stream press). Thinking that this was an anomaly, in Wisconsin the statists tried to retake control through recall elections. The elections were clear and they statists failed. The people want less not more state control. Any pundit or politician telling you otherwise is deluded or a liar. Statists are running scared.
Our government is very scared that they cannot control elections as they have in the past. The explosion in communications makes it harder to control the news people see, and ideas they share. Because of this, and the heavy losses in the last election to people who are not loyal to the state, but are loyal to the people who elected them, Statists are demonizing not just the TEA Party, but any person who argues against more central planning and control. Proof of statist fear can be seen in the recent Homeland Security and FBI announcements to be on the lookout for Christian white males using cash to purchase hurricane and disaster preparedness supplies, self reliant people who do not trust the government as their protector, are potential terrorists. How exactly does the U.S. Department of Homeland Security view terrorists? You can see who the government fears in a new public service announcement that encourages Americans to report "suspicious" behavior to authorities. Watch Here.
The funny thing is that in reality what the government tells us to fear and look out for is not the profile of actual terrorists. Checking the Bombathon 2011 Scorecard , the first 20 days of Ramadan there has been over 100 terror attacks around the world in the name of Islam, with over 450 associated deaths. In the same time period there have been zero attacks and zero deaths in the name of all other religions. Comparing reality to government flyers and video’s it is obvious that the only reasonable explanation is that the government fears the vote self reliant citizens who love freedom more than it fears the bombs and murder by blood thirsty Islamic zealots who favor statism and despise western freedom.
This would explain why statists refer to the TEA Party as a terrorist organization, but won’t call Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organizations. Statists accuse those congressmen who would vote as they promised their constituents terrorists, kidnappers, and worse for using their vote to enact change; change that they hope will move the country away from state control and towards liberty. Statists equate a legal vote to limit the government with real bombs killing innocent people.
None of the polls indicate that more state control is popular, congress is polling at an all time low and the chief statist, Pres. Obama, is bombing out. This is not party specific; the people are rightly blaming, centralized control, and not the Democrats or Republicans directly. Note the massive increase in independent and third party voter registration. We in the Libertarian Party are seeing massive growth, new leadership, and more interest in libertarian ideas they ever in our history. It doesn’t take a genius to see that things like the DoED, with more centralized planning, and statist control of education has failed; if you point this out the statists will attack you as wanting to end education, when the reality is the people want to end central planning of education.
The biggest boom to our economy, ever, was post WWII, when there was massive contraction of the government and centralized control and planning. Reducing central planning, eliminating state controls like rationing, and eliminating thousands of government employees and soldiers, resulted in the greatest economic expansion the world ever saw. If you compare real liberty, standards of living, and quality of life in countries with more vs. less state control, you will find that it is quite clear that the more economic freedom and protection of private property found in a country, the better off the people of that country are. We are seeing the US standard of living drop as we see more central planning; we see the standard of living increase where we see decrease in central planning and control in other countries. The problem is that with more central planning comes more power for statists, power they desire and won’t easily relinquish. Statists, regardless of party, firmly believe that it is better to have state control of the economy and politics at the expense of individual liberty. The simple fact is that less central planning results in more freedom.
What do you support freedom, or statism?
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.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Reading between the party lines in the Iowa straw poll
By Tom Rhodes, 8/15/2011
There is a faction of the GOP, the Republican Liberty Caucus, which espouses and supports libertarian ideas. They support Ron Paul and other libertarian minded candidates. The RLC claims to be the small government, liberty-defending wing of the Republican Party. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly be a test of whether corporate or RLC determine the course of the Republican Party.
The RLC more closely rrepresents the actual values of the people, as indicated by the 4671 votes for Ron Paul over the media and GOP leadership preferred nominees. As a Libertarian, in many ways I hope the RLC is not successful in its goals of re-introducing the values that started the Republican Party back to the GOP. Today these values are called libertarian. The RLC Statement of Principles reads much like the LPF platform. For the sake of my party I would prefer the RLC to realize that the corporate powers that control the GOP will not allow their success, and the best chance for true success is to abandon the GOP and urge all liberty loving republicans to join the Libertarian Party. The good libertarian that I am, my true hope is more than the success of the LP but my hope is for actual smaller government and more liberty in my lifetime, so I will cheer the RLC if they are successful and Republican Ron Paul is nominated. If the RLC fails, it will be a clear indicator that the GOP is just a corporate shill promoting statism through corporate cronyism and that the two-party system has failed the people of the United States.
The Iowa GOP straw poll and the media response clearly demonstrate that the statist parties do not want nor respect the actual desires of the people.
Minnesota congresswoman and Iowa native, Michelle Bachmann, spent millions and won the Iowa straw poll. As a local and “favorite son” of Iowa, one would expect that the citizens of the great state of Iowa support one of their own. However, history has shown that nobody who has won the GOP Iowa straw poll (unless unopposed) has ultimately won, EVER! Although an entertaining candidate who sends liberals frothing at the mouth, which is always fun to watch, she will not win the GOP nomination much less the Presidency, and will be defeated fairly early in the primaries, the press and GOP leadership will see to that.
The results of the Iowa Republican straw poll of August 13, had Bachmann, edged out Ron Paul with a 4,823 to 4,671 victory. Ron Paul, despite what the main stream press says, won the debate last Thursday, and clearly has more popular support than the press or leadership in the GOP wants to recognize. Excluding Bachmann, Paul had more than double the votes of any other candidate, and the poll indicates that the rest of the GOP field does not have much popular support. The results of others were: (3) Tim Pawlenty 2,293; (4) Rick Santorum 1,657; (5) Herman Cain 1,456; (6) Rick Perry 718 (write-in); (7) Mitt Romney 567; (8) Newt Gingrich 385; (9) Jon Huntsman 69; (10) Thad McCotter 35.
It is clear that even with their national recognition Santorum, Cain, and Gingrich are in it so that they can hopefully set the direction the GOP want the nomination to go and have a voice in the primaries, not to actually win. The GOP and Press do not really want to recognize or accept the actual direction the people indicate they want the party to move. Romney finished 7th, he is not conservative, does not believe small-government principles, and does not have popular support, and the albatross of Romneycare makes him unelectable; Yet according to the media, he is the front runner for the Republican nomination. Some in the press have declared that it is a race between Romney and Perry, the statists want the people to choose the candidate they prefer, not the candidate who voices the ideas the people actually want.
Romney is leading in corporate donations; Perry will be another large corporate beneficiary (big oil). The GOP elites in Washington do not want some outsider nominated. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly demonstrate whether statist corporate cronyism or the people determine the course of the Republican Party. Last November the GOP elite and corporate cronies got caught with their pants down. The people through the TEA Party actually upset their apple cart, and the elected a good number of republicans who actually did as they promised, and voted to keep government spending down. They are being vilified by the press, the Democrats, and GOP leadership. Note the double standard in how the members of the TEA Party faction were treated for not voting to extend the debt ceiling, compared to the Democrats who also refused to vote for the plan.
I predict that the GOP elite and corporate cronies will do all they can to insure that they do not let the Republican nomination go to somebody who isn’t firmly in their pocket. I believe they would rather lose the presidency, then allow a person who they don’t firmly control, and who won’t continue to support the expansion of government, get nominated. The very idea of a GOP candidate who doesn’t support corporate supremacy, and the continued control of the economy and people through government largess frighten them. The Republicans and Democrats are both statists, their only difference is the means of state control they support. The Democrats want state control by controlling the people, the GOP wants state control through corporations, and neither promotes individual liberty and freedom.
The idea that somebody with true libertarian ideas who has popular support, like Ron Paul, wins the GOP nomination is not something the statists will tolerate. They do not want the people to have the chance to choose a candidate who supports small government. Expect the press to ignore or denigrate any success of candidates with libertarian ideas. Expect the leaders from both statist parties, the Republicans and Democrats, to work together to kill any libertarian candidate. Expect them to do all they can to down play the significance of the TEA Party changing the election in 2010, and the TEA Party faction actually voting in congress the way they promised. Expect the Democrats to attack and make the TEA party look smaller than it is, and the GOP to try and co-opt the TEA Party, and move it to corporate cronyism.
There is a faction of the GOP, the Republican Liberty Caucus, which espouses and supports libertarian ideas. They support Ron Paul and other libertarian minded candidates. The RLC claims to be the small government, liberty-defending wing of the Republican Party. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly be a test of whether corporate or RLC determine the course of the Republican Party.
The RLC more closely rrepresents the actual values of the people, as indicated by the 4671 votes for Ron Paul over the media and GOP leadership preferred nominees. As a Libertarian, in many ways I hope the RLC is not successful in its goals of re-introducing the values that started the Republican Party back to the GOP. Today these values are called libertarian. The RLC Statement of Principles reads much like the LPF platform. For the sake of my party I would prefer the RLC to realize that the corporate powers that control the GOP will not allow their success, and the best chance for true success is to abandon the GOP and urge all liberty loving republicans to join the Libertarian Party. The good libertarian that I am, my true hope is more than the success of the LP but my hope is for actual smaller government and more liberty in my lifetime, so I will cheer the RLC if they are successful and Republican Ron Paul is nominated. If the RLC fails, it will be a clear indicator that the GOP is just a corporate shill promoting statism through corporate cronyism and that the two-party system has failed the people of the United States.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Damned if You Do, Damned . . .
By Tom Rhodes
We as citizens are now in the position that if we do as the government has asked us to do then we are to be considered terrorists. If you follow the recommendations provided by our government through FEMA and prepare for an emergency the FBI says you’re a terrorist.
The government through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, specifically advises citizens to collect stockpile and keep a "Kit" ready in case of emergencies. The FEMA site recommends that we stock our disaster kits with such items as:
Food that does not require refrigeration and has a long shelf life (MRE’s) Emergency preparedness manual Portable, battery-operated radio or television and extra batteries Flashlight and extra batteries Knife Compass Matcheas in a waterproof container Waterproof storage containers Maps Cash and Coins
Identity theft is a major problem, many government web pages urge people to guard their personal information. One of the best ways to protect your identity is not to give it out and to use cash whenever possible. When somebody shows an interest or requirement to have your identity and know your business, common sense dictates that you should not provide that information.
The FBI has distributed a flyer to retailers, some of the purchases/activities that the FBI has requested they be on the lookout in a recently purchased flyer:
Waterproof Match Containers Meals Ready to Eat Night Flashlights Paying with cash Wanting to protect personal identity
This FBI produced flyer titled, “Communities Against Terrorism” states:
Included in the flyers is a request by the FBI that among other actions retailers:
Require valid ID from all new customers. Keep records or purchases. Talk to customers, ask questions, and listen to and observe their responses.
br />So if we are good citizens and do as our government asks by protect our identities and take personal responsibility to take care of ourselves in the event of a disaster by storing reserve food supplies, water, self defense armaments, cash and tradable goods, etc. then we have become “persons of interest” and domestic terrorism suspects.
I often say we have “Too Much Government.” When the very act of doing what some parts of the government asks us to do is now considered an indicator of terrorist activity or intent, it is clear that saying we have “Too Much Government” may be the understatement of the century.
This blatant example of Too Much Government had me worried and mad, then I remembered a quote by Thomas Jefferson that gives me hope.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Obviously a significant portion of the justly people fear the government. Just as obviously the government fears the people, especially people who are willing to take responsibility for their own security and wellbeing. Maybe, just maybe, this irrational fear of the government has for the people is an indicator that liberty is not totally gone, but it is a warning to us all, that the government is not our friend or benefactor but a necessary evil which will take our liberty with the slimmest of excuses and we need to remain vigilant against the intrusion of government tyranny into our lives.
We as citizens are now in the position that if we do as the government has asked us to do then we are to be considered terrorists. If you follow the recommendations provided by our government through FEMA and prepare for an emergency the FBI says you’re a terrorist.
The government through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, specifically advises citizens to collect stockpile and keep a "Kit" ready in case of emergencies. The FEMA site recommends that we stock our disaster kits with such items as:
Identity theft is a major problem, many government web pages urge people to guard their personal information. One of the best ways to protect your identity is not to give it out and to use cash whenever possible. When somebody shows an interest or requirement to have your identity and know your business, common sense dictates that you should not provide that information.
The FBI has distributed a flyer to retailers, some of the purchases/activities that the FBI has requested they be on the lookout in a recently purchased flyer:
This FBI produced flyer titled, “Communities Against Terrorism” states:
Preventing terrorism is a community effort. By learning what to look for, you can make a positive contribution in the fight against terrorism. The partnership between the community and law enforcement is essential to the success of anti-terrorism efforts.
Some of the activities, taken individually, could be innocent and must be examined by law enforcement professionals in a larger context to determine whether there is a basis to investigate. The activities outlined on this handout are by no means all-inclusive but have been compiled from a review of terrorist events over several years.
Included in the flyers is a request by the FBI that among other actions retailers:
br />So if we are good citizens and do as our government asks by protect our identities and take personal responsibility to take care of ourselves in the event of a disaster by storing reserve food supplies, water, self defense armaments, cash and tradable goods, etc. then we have become “persons of interest” and domestic terrorism suspects.
I often say we have “Too Much Government.” When the very act of doing what some parts of the government asks us to do is now considered an indicator of terrorist activity or intent, it is clear that saying we have “Too Much Government” may be the understatement of the century.
This blatant example of Too Much Government had me worried and mad, then I remembered a quote by Thomas Jefferson that gives me hope.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Obviously a significant portion of the justly people fear the government. Just as obviously the government fears the people, especially people who are willing to take responsibility for their own security and wellbeing. Maybe, just maybe, this irrational fear of the government has for the people is an indicator that liberty is not totally gone, but it is a warning to us all, that the government is not our friend or benefactor but a necessary evil which will take our liberty with the slimmest of excuses and we need to remain vigilant against the intrusion of government tyranny into our lives.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The next eco-panic: Galactic Warming!
By VoxDay, 7/28/2011
I see no other way to view this terrifying news from NASA:
The governments and people of the world must act at once to end the threat to the environment of space. It is not just our future, or our children's future, but the future of the furry six-eyed children living on Xaraxifap VI that depends on our species ending the threat posed by our industrial lifestyle. Clearly, the only solution is to provide completely unaccountable power to a centralized institution of global government and pay for it with new hot space taxes.
We cannot permit the Milky Way to become the Steamy, Frothy Way! End Galactic Warming now!
Editor's Note, I was about to post a virtually identical commentary using the same data, but VoxDay did it faster and better, so I stole it and put it here.
I see no other way to view this terrifying news from NASA:
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
The governments and people of the world must act at once to end the threat to the environment of space. It is not just our future, or our children's future, but the future of the furry six-eyed children living on Xaraxifap VI that depends on our species ending the threat posed by our industrial lifestyle. Clearly, the only solution is to provide completely unaccountable power to a centralized institution of global government and pay for it with new hot space taxes.
We cannot permit the Milky Way to become the Steamy, Frothy Way! End Galactic Warming now!
Editor's Note, I was about to post a virtually identical commentary using the same data, but VoxDay did it faster and better, so I stole it and put it here.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
At Some Point You've Taken Enough
By Tom Rhodes, 7/28/2011
President Obama famously said “At some point you’ve made enough money.” The American taxpayer clearly told the government in 2010 when it elected a whole new batch of people to the house and senate, “At some point you’ve taken enough money.”
The deficit argument and debt ceiling fight are just statist distractions to try and fool the people. The government has already approved huge increases in spending every year for ever by adopting so called “baseline budgeting” which automatically increase every federal department and programs budget every year. All the cuts they talk about are cuts to how much they plan on increasing their spending not actual cuts. Enough already, we should be talking about stopping the automatic growth of government. The people elected representatives who promised not to put us any further into debt. They know that compromising on raising the debt will cost them their jobs. The shell game of automatic increases has to stop. Nobody else outside of government can or does budget that way. This was put into place around 40 years ago around the time of Watergate and Jimmy Carter. The people are tired of it, we look at actual spending and try to figure out why they expect us to believe that they are going to cut a Trillion dollars of spending over 10 years when their own numbers show the national debt doubling under that same plan.
The budget the house passed, the Ryan Budget, was not passed by the Senate, and Obama said he would veto it. This so-called draconian budget still increased government spending every year, yet both major parties said it was a “cut.” In no way can a budget that increases actual spending every year be called a cut. The statists in Washington are lying to us. They continue to lie to us, and tell us we’re too stupid to understand when we actually expect them to cut some spending. Not one of the statists, Republican or Democrat, is willing to tell the truth. Constant automatic growth of government spending (hence growth of government) is not sustainable. The government should take its own advice and think about sustainability, uncontrolled unchecked growth is not sustainable even for government. Do like you want the people of this country and the world to do, learn to live with less, learn to live simply, learn to be satisfied with less, . . . .
Obama wants the people to accept that there is a limit to how much they should be allowed to earn, but no limit to what government should be allowed to spend. A great many people through their vote and polls have said to Obama and Washington, at some point you’ve taken enough money. But part of the American way is you can just keep on taking it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We the people don't want government to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities. But Washington you are not providing good service, a good product, and are overstepping the core responsibilities we’ve empowered you to fulfill.
President Obama famously said “At some point you’ve made enough money.” The American taxpayer clearly told the government in 2010 when it elected a whole new batch of people to the house and senate, “At some point you’ve taken enough money.”
The deficit argument and debt ceiling fight are just statist distractions to try and fool the people. The government has already approved huge increases in spending every year for ever by adopting so called “baseline budgeting” which automatically increase every federal department and programs budget every year. All the cuts they talk about are cuts to how much they plan on increasing their spending not actual cuts. Enough already, we should be talking about stopping the automatic growth of government. The people elected representatives who promised not to put us any further into debt. They know that compromising on raising the debt will cost them their jobs. The shell game of automatic increases has to stop. Nobody else outside of government can or does budget that way. This was put into place around 40 years ago around the time of Watergate and Jimmy Carter. The people are tired of it, we look at actual spending and try to figure out why they expect us to believe that they are going to cut a Trillion dollars of spending over 10 years when their own numbers show the national debt doubling under that same plan.
The budget the house passed, the Ryan Budget, was not passed by the Senate, and Obama said he would veto it. This so-called draconian budget still increased government spending every year, yet both major parties said it was a “cut.” In no way can a budget that increases actual spending every year be called a cut. The statists in Washington are lying to us. They continue to lie to us, and tell us we’re too stupid to understand when we actually expect them to cut some spending. Not one of the statists, Republican or Democrat, is willing to tell the truth. Constant automatic growth of government spending (hence growth of government) is not sustainable. The government should take its own advice and think about sustainability, uncontrolled unchecked growth is not sustainable even for government. Do like you want the people of this country and the world to do, learn to live with less, learn to live simply, learn to be satisfied with less, . . . .
Obama wants the people to accept that there is a limit to how much they should be allowed to earn, but no limit to what government should be allowed to spend. A great many people through their vote and polls have said to Obama and Washington, at some point you’ve taken enough money. But part of the American way is you can just keep on taking it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We the people don't want government to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities. But Washington you are not providing good service, a good product, and are overstepping the core responsibilities we’ve empowered you to fulfill.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Café Reality
By Tom Rhodes, 7/25/2011
President Obama is calling for Café standards to be 56mpg by 2025. News articles and editorials lament that in Europe people can buy 60+mpg cars but the car companies “wont” sell them in the USA. The blame the car companies and ignores the reality of mobility in the USA.
The first thing is that people in the USA purchase a car for the weekends, and suffer with it for commuting. The choice of a vehicle to pull a boat, a camper, or take a long road trip has a lot of different criteria; fuel efficiency is important but not as important as a vehicle that will do the job. Although a tiny euro-econobox get’s great millage, squeezing 2 kids, spot the wonder dog, luggage, gifts, and all the necessary stuff to take the two day 1200 mile trip to visit grandma is not something many people wouldn’t do twice. Once it’s all loaded down, the euro-econobox won’t comfortably climb over the mountains. So although for everyday driving, to work, to the mall, to school, etc. the euro-econobox is a viable solution, the savings in fuel economy, are lost if you have to rent a big vehicle a couple times every year for family excursions, and it won’t tow the boat.
Then there are the details that most editorials don’t tell us when they talk about how wonderful the 60mpg euro-econobox car is, other than the evil car companies won’t sell them in the USA. They are light weight, and usually have a diesel engine. This is a big problem in the USA, the greater cost of diesel means that there is no savings in owning one, but you do have the smell, and smog…. those engines don’t meet us pollution control standards so can’t be sold in the US. Thus our government has declared that to decrease some exhaust gases, like particulate carbon and NOx, we are willing to create more of other gasses like CO2.
Now don’t forget the weight, our pollution and safety regulations have added significant mass to every vehicle on the road today. Compare the 1970 VW Beetle to the 2010 VW Beatle. In 1970 The VW Beatle had acceptable but not great performance, got a real 25MPG, with a very inefficient, air cooled, 57hp, 1600cc engine (using zero ethanol gas, with today’s fuel it only has around 45HP). It weighed less than 1600 pounds. Today’s Beetle gets the same 25MPG. Why after 40 years does the same model car get the same mileage it did in 1970?
Weight, today’s Beetle is about half a ton heavier, it weighs over 2600 pounds, has an engine that is 67% more mass, puts out about 3 times the horse power, carries 67% more fuel, has pounds and pounds of insulation and other materials to make the ride and noise levels acceptable, and significant increases in suspension to carry the extra weight. It has about the same MPG rating as the 1970 Beetle because the USA’s regulations have force it to carry massive amounts safety and pollution control equipment. Although in production until 2004, the old original Beetle design was eliminated from the US market 25 years before that because it could not meet the continuously more restrictive US regulations. In 1987 you had your choice of several 50+ MPG cars in the US. The Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Honda CRX, and similar models come to mind. Those cars continue to be sold in other parts of the world but not the US.
One of the big reasons we don’t have high MPG cars in the USA is that unlike other countries, the nanny state of the USA is not willing to let the people choose a car with the level of safety and pollution that accompany a tiny 1400 pound diesel car. The euro-econobox Fiat 500 being brought to the USA, is only going to get about 33MPG, and have less room and comfort than other cars with similar mileage ratings, etc. The Fiat 500 being sold in the US is not actually the same Fiat 500 sold in Europe. It is a different design that is built in Mexico. There are at least 45 major changes; The headlamps were raised 4 inches to meet US lighting laws; The wiper blades are longer to comply with the US law that stipulates how much of the windshield must be kept clear; The doors and lower pillars have steel reinforced braces to meet side impact regulations; The side airbag in the U.S. car extends to the back seat, it doesn’t in Europe (even if you never have a passenger in the micro back seat, you are having to pay for extended airbags); The spare tire was moved under the car to improve floor strength. The requirements to have the care sold in the US are so great, it virtually had to be redesigned.
All these changes to meet regulations cause increased weight, which means it needs more power, which means we cannot use the efficient little 57HP diesel the 60mpg euro version uses. This engine won’t meet the emission standards, and the added weight required for the US model means that the Fiat 500 won’t perform at acceptable levels with any of the smaller engine options available. Thus in the USA we only get the largest high performance 1.4L engine option. At around $16,000 other than for its retro-Italian styling it’s hard to fathom why people in the US would choose the Mexican built Fiat 500, over the roomier, equally fuel efficient, better guaranteed, choices available. (On another note, the tax dollars used to help out Chrysler, built a Fiat plant in Mexico not the USA.)
The government killed the big American Sedan, It used to be that the family bought a big sedan or station wagon that could pull a boat, was safe and was good for the great American road trip. The Ford LTD, Chrysler Newport, Chevy Impala, Buick Roadmaster and similar models were the family car. The government added café standards, and other regulations and those 12 mpg cars had to be eliminated, some of America bought the smaller cars the ruling elite in Washington wanted them to buy. Overall America’s needs and wants didn’t change, but the government rules did, so we continued to buy vehicles that did what we needed and wanted, trucks, 4 door pickups, SUV’s, conversion vans, etc.; a vehicle big enough to haul the camper, protect the family, with room enough to spread out on a long road trip. Truck and SUV sales didn’t sky rocket because America’s tastes changed, the government interfered with the free market and tried to force people into what the ruling elite in Washington wanted people to drive, not what met their needs and desires.
This is what it looked like at the end of the 70’s, a family sedan, today that picture would have a big SUV. I just can’t see a Fiat 500 towing an Airstream across America. Americans didn’t quit wanting to travel in comfort, on their own time schedule going where they wanted, but the government sure is trying to make it harder. The USA is not Europe, we drive thousands of miles more than they do on the other side of the pond. We are not all bunched up in old cities. This country grew up around the automobile, our suburbs, malls, drive-in’s, all were designed around cars and mobility. We have demanded safety standards the rest of the world doesn’t think are necessary. We won’t tolerate the same kind of pollution Europe does.
Only pinhead pseudo-intellectuals would think that American car companies don’t want to sell high MPG cars. American car companies sell what Americans want to buy. We do want fuel efficiency, just not at the expense of safety. We do want fuel efficiency, just not at the expense of ability to tow a trailer. We do want fuel efficiency, just not at the expense a comfortable ride on long trips. Like most Americans I don’t need my SUV for my everyday use, I purchased an SUV because a couple times a year, I need to pull a trailer with my motorcycles and camping gear for a week in the mountains. The alternative say pinhead pseudo-intellectuals, is to own and use a small car and rent a truck or SUV for the few times you actually need it. The problem is that the cost of driving a small car everyday and renting a bigger vehicle for the few times I actually need it, is greater than driving the SUV every day.
I live in a rural part of the country and drive 20000 miles per year, of that about 3600 miles is for vacations. My SUV gets an honest 20mpg. Do the math and for the 20000 miles per year I drive every year, I use about 1000 gallons of fuel. If I followed pinhead pseudo-intellectuals suggestion and I’d drive my 33mpg car 16400 miles I’d use about 500 gallons of fuel, and I’d rent an SUV as needed for my 36oo miles of vacation driving. If you do the math assuming $3.50 per gallon of gas, if I had a small car for everyday that got 33MPG and rented an SUV when I needed it, I’d save about $1120 in fuel costs, Add to that about $1200 in renting an SUV for my two week-long vacations to the mountains. It’s actually cheaper to drive my SUV everyday than it is to own a small car and rent an SUV for the few times I need it and I get the added benefit of a more versatile, more comfortable, and safer vehicle everyday not just on vacations.
The needs and desires of the American people drive the choices we make in vehicles. The government getting in the way doesn’t change the needs and desires of the people. CAFE standards killed the large American sedan. They did not change why the large American sedan was so popular. What the CAFE Standard did was move the people to mini-vans, pickups, and SUVs. This is typical of the unintended consequences that come with government regulations. I predict an unintended consequence of Obama’s increase in the CAFE standard will be a huge increase in the purchase of commercial vehicles by the people which in reality will be used for non-commercial purposes, like towing the boat, camper, and taking long trips. The market will provide the people with what they want in spite of how the government tries to control what people spend their money on.
President Obama is calling for Café standards to be 56mpg by 2025. News articles and editorials lament that in Europe people can buy 60+mpg cars but the car companies “wont” sell them in the USA. The blame the car companies and ignores the reality of mobility in the USA.
The first thing is that people in the USA purchase a car for the weekends, and suffer with it for commuting. The choice of a vehicle to pull a boat, a camper, or take a long road trip has a lot of different criteria; fuel efficiency is important but not as important as a vehicle that will do the job. Although a tiny euro-econobox get’s great millage, squeezing 2 kids, spot the wonder dog, luggage, gifts, and all the necessary stuff to take the two day 1200 mile trip to visit grandma is not something many people wouldn’t do twice. Once it’s all loaded down, the euro-econobox won’t comfortably climb over the mountains. So although for everyday driving, to work, to the mall, to school, etc. the euro-econobox is a viable solution, the savings in fuel economy, are lost if you have to rent a big vehicle a couple times every year for family excursions, and it won’t tow the boat.
Then there are the details that most editorials don’t tell us when they talk about how wonderful the 60mpg euro-econobox car is, other than the evil car companies won’t sell them in the USA. They are light weight, and usually have a diesel engine. This is a big problem in the USA, the greater cost of diesel means that there is no savings in owning one, but you do have the smell, and smog…. those engines don’t meet us pollution control standards so can’t be sold in the US. Thus our government has declared that to decrease some exhaust gases, like particulate carbon and NOx, we are willing to create more of other gasses like CO2.
Now don’t forget the weight, our pollution and safety regulations have added significant mass to every vehicle on the road today. Compare the 1970 VW Beetle to the 2010 VW Beatle. In 1970 The VW Beatle had acceptable but not great performance, got a real 25MPG, with a very inefficient, air cooled, 57hp, 1600cc engine (using zero ethanol gas, with today’s fuel it only has around 45HP). It weighed less than 1600 pounds. Today’s Beetle gets the same 25MPG. Why after 40 years does the same model car get the same mileage it did in 1970?
Weight, today’s Beetle is about half a ton heavier, it weighs over 2600 pounds, has an engine that is 67% more mass, puts out about 3 times the horse power, carries 67% more fuel, has pounds and pounds of insulation and other materials to make the ride and noise levels acceptable, and significant increases in suspension to carry the extra weight. It has about the same MPG rating as the 1970 Beetle because the USA’s regulations have force it to carry massive amounts safety and pollution control equipment. Although in production until 2004, the old original Beetle design was eliminated from the US market 25 years before that because it could not meet the continuously more restrictive US regulations. In 1987 you had your choice of several 50+ MPG cars in the US. The Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Honda CRX, and similar models come to mind. Those cars continue to be sold in other parts of the world but not the US.
One of the big reasons we don’t have high MPG cars in the USA is that unlike other countries, the nanny state of the USA is not willing to let the people choose a car with the level of safety and pollution that accompany a tiny 1400 pound diesel car. The euro-econobox Fiat 500 being brought to the USA, is only going to get about 33MPG, and have less room and comfort than other cars with similar mileage ratings, etc. The Fiat 500 being sold in the US is not actually the same Fiat 500 sold in Europe. It is a different design that is built in Mexico. There are at least 45 major changes; The headlamps were raised 4 inches to meet US lighting laws; The wiper blades are longer to comply with the US law that stipulates how much of the windshield must be kept clear; The doors and lower pillars have steel reinforced braces to meet side impact regulations; The side airbag in the U.S. car extends to the back seat, it doesn’t in Europe (even if you never have a passenger in the micro back seat, you are having to pay for extended airbags); The spare tire was moved under the car to improve floor strength. The requirements to have the care sold in the US are so great, it virtually had to be redesigned.
All these changes to meet regulations cause increased weight, which means it needs more power, which means we cannot use the efficient little 57HP diesel the 60mpg euro version uses. This engine won’t meet the emission standards, and the added weight required for the US model means that the Fiat 500 won’t perform at acceptable levels with any of the smaller engine options available. Thus in the USA we only get the largest high performance 1.4L engine option. At around $16,000 other than for its retro-Italian styling it’s hard to fathom why people in the US would choose the Mexican built Fiat 500, over the roomier, equally fuel efficient, better guaranteed, choices available. (On another note, the tax dollars used to help out Chrysler, built a Fiat plant in Mexico not the USA.)
The government killed the big American Sedan, It used to be that the family bought a big sedan or station wagon that could pull a boat, was safe and was good for the great American road trip. The Ford LTD, Chrysler Newport, Chevy Impala, Buick Roadmaster and similar models were the family car. The government added café standards, and other regulations and those 12 mpg cars had to be eliminated, some of America bought the smaller cars the ruling elite in Washington wanted them to buy. Overall America’s needs and wants didn’t change, but the government rules did, so we continued to buy vehicles that did what we needed and wanted, trucks, 4 door pickups, SUV’s, conversion vans, etc.; a vehicle big enough to haul the camper, protect the family, with room enough to spread out on a long road trip. Truck and SUV sales didn’t sky rocket because America’s tastes changed, the government interfered with the free market and tried to force people into what the ruling elite in Washington wanted people to drive, not what met their needs and desires.
This is what it looked like at the end of the 70’s, a family sedan, today that picture would have a big SUV. I just can’t see a Fiat 500 towing an Airstream across America. Americans didn’t quit wanting to travel in comfort, on their own time schedule going where they wanted, but the government sure is trying to make it harder. The USA is not Europe, we drive thousands of miles more than they do on the other side of the pond. We are not all bunched up in old cities. This country grew up around the automobile, our suburbs, malls, drive-in’s, all were designed around cars and mobility. We have demanded safety standards the rest of the world doesn’t think are necessary. We won’t tolerate the same kind of pollution Europe does.
Only pinhead pseudo-intellectuals would think that American car companies don’t want to sell high MPG cars. American car companies sell what Americans want to buy. We do want fuel efficiency, just not at the expense of safety. We do want fuel efficiency, just not at the expense of ability to tow a trailer. We do want fuel efficiency, just not at the expense a comfortable ride on long trips. Like most Americans I don’t need my SUV for my everyday use, I purchased an SUV because a couple times a year, I need to pull a trailer with my motorcycles and camping gear for a week in the mountains. The alternative say pinhead pseudo-intellectuals, is to own and use a small car and rent a truck or SUV for the few times you actually need it. The problem is that the cost of driving a small car everyday and renting a bigger vehicle for the few times I actually need it, is greater than driving the SUV every day.
I live in a rural part of the country and drive 20000 miles per year, of that about 3600 miles is for vacations. My SUV gets an honest 20mpg. Do the math and for the 20000 miles per year I drive every year, I use about 1000 gallons of fuel. If I followed pinhead pseudo-intellectuals suggestion and I’d drive my 33mpg car 16400 miles I’d use about 500 gallons of fuel, and I’d rent an SUV as needed for my 36oo miles of vacation driving. If you do the math assuming $3.50 per gallon of gas, if I had a small car for everyday that got 33MPG and rented an SUV when I needed it, I’d save about $1120 in fuel costs, Add to that about $1200 in renting an SUV for my two week-long vacations to the mountains. It’s actually cheaper to drive my SUV everyday than it is to own a small car and rent an SUV for the few times I need it and I get the added benefit of a more versatile, more comfortable, and safer vehicle everyday not just on vacations.
The needs and desires of the American people drive the choices we make in vehicles. The government getting in the way doesn’t change the needs and desires of the people. CAFE standards killed the large American sedan. They did not change why the large American sedan was so popular. What the CAFE Standard did was move the people to mini-vans, pickups, and SUVs. This is typical of the unintended consequences that come with government regulations. I predict an unintended consequence of Obama’s increase in the CAFE standard will be a huge increase in the purchase of commercial vehicles by the people which in reality will be used for non-commercial purposes, like towing the boat, camper, and taking long trips. The market will provide the people with what they want in spite of how the government tries to control what people spend their money on.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Liberty vs. Security Just a Matter of Standards
By Tom Rhodes, 7/20/2011The difference between statists (that’s both Democrats and Republicans) and libertarians is that libertarians respect liberty for themselves and others while statists have little or no respect for the liberty of others. Now if you believe that federal government’s primary roles is to take care of people, regulate their economic activities, and maintain an overseas military empire that intervenes in the affairs of other countries, then you are clearly a statist. This description clearly defines Obama as a well as Bush as statists.
Libertarians in the USA are different from statists, although they have been born and raised within the statist environment; they have broken free of it, in both an intellectual and moral sense. Unlike statists, we recognize that statism isn’t freedom at all. Libertarians want to be free, with all that freedom entails.
Of necessity people who want and accept freedom tend to be to be people of high standards. If a free person takes actions that are not in his best interest, he must be prepared to take the consequences for those actions. A free person doesn't have government agencies bailing him out of every difficulty or excusing his behavior because life isn’t “fair.”
The truth is that unfree people usually succumb to having or acquiring low standards. Under the ruse of being "fair," the government removes the consequences of behavior. This results in the removal of feedback for our actions. With no negative feedback to unproductive or immoral actions, standards sink like a rock. When our motivation to provide for ourselves, and treat others as we would be treated, is removed; when there are no negative consequences to our behavior; when we accept that others have the right to tell us what to do, and tell our neighbors what they must do; when we accept that we are entitled to the labor and property of others; we have lost our the ability to self-govern. Dependency becomes a way of life. Not only do unfree people not respect their own liberty, they demonize those who would claim freedom for themselves.
The lack of respect for liberty, leads directly to lack of respect for life and property. The natural course of events is for authoritarians to reward themselves with special dispensations, to participate in gross immorality and to use imprisonment, torture and murder as tools of control. Nobody could have thought that those terms could be used to describe the US government. Now it is plain that the statists whether Democrat or Republican, that are currently in Washington share significant qualities that were once only considered qualities of unaccountable dictators.
Because too many have become effeminate and will sacrifice their liberty, freedom, and self-respect to provide security for themselves and/or their children, individual freedom, liberty and rights are no longer respected. No matter how much effort is put forth in ensuring "security" no one is ever truly secure. In order to guarantee complete security, you would have to accept restraints on your liberty to the point that you are no longer free. Worse yet to secure this “security” you must restrain your fellow man and take his property as well.
One of the biggest projections that fearful statists have is that those who value freedom and liberty would be the first to call on the government for help, if they were in need. This is merely the projection of their fear onto others. They cannot fathom that a person would rather suffer the consequences of life and their own actions than give up their freedom. They have been so wussified by the belief that there should be no suffering for making bad decisions, nor suffering if nature doesn’t treat you fairly, that they cannot even comprehend the idea that there are those who have such high standards and belief in themselves that they prefer freedom to security.
The total lack of respect for liberty is evident, they create regulations as to what food you can buy, what chemicals you can put in your body, and new even want to regulate the level of success an individual is allowed to obtain. Statists demonize anybody who wants liberty. They demand that everybody accept their low standards and reject the high standards and accountability that free men expect of themselves and others. They are more worried about how students feel about themselves than how they perform. They fear risk, so attempt to regulate it out of existence. They hate the fact that it is free people willing to take risk, invest, work, who don’t accept that their success/failure is based on the actions of others, who created a government that had severely limited powers, whose sole purpose was to protect the natural rights of the people from all enemies foreign and domestic, and allow the people them self-rule, not rule by some elite. No place else in the world embraced the scary idea that to ensure freedom, the people should allowed to govern themselves, that the consequences of self-governing are preferable to the security of statism.
Obama has repeatedly said that he believes he is a ruling elite who should have the authority to do what he thinks is best for everybody, and that the labor, property, and capital of all individuals should be his and the other ruling elites to use and (re)distribute as they see fit. He’s called the constitution “inconvenient” and routinely ignored it. The rule of law is bothersome, and he changes it to reward those he favors and punish those he doesn’t, of course, all for the good and security of the nation. The has told us we are too stupid to understand the debt, promised us transparency while doing more in secret than even Bush. He is a statist of the worst kind and has no respect for the liberty of the citizens of the country he was elected to lead not rule.
Libertarians believe that people should be free to engage in any occupation or profession without any government-issued license, permit, or other form of official permission. Let consumers, not the government, decide who engages in different lines of work. I trust the ASE to certify my mechanic not the government, and would trust the American Board of Thoracic Surgeons to certify my doctor far more than the government. Let free men decide not the government. Libertarians believe that people should be free to enter into mutually beneficial transactions with anyone else without interference by the government.
Libertarians believe that people should be free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and, equally important, to decide for themselves what to do with it — spend, save, invest, or donate it. Thus, we hold that people should be free to plan for their own retirement (or not), to donate to their church or other causes (or not), and to help out their elderly or ailing parents and grandparents (or not). Compare the human right standards of countries who are dependent upon foreign aid to those that are not.
Statists have low standards, don’t respect or trust the people to be free, they don’t respect the property of others, and don’t feel as though anybody should ever suffer as a result of bad decisions. So the Statists want to make all the decisions for everybody. This is hardly freedom, and the security they offer is just a lie to concentrate power among the ruling class. If you value security over freedom continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans, they will gladly promise you security in exchange for your freedom, property, and standard of living, you will get neither, nor if you would sacrifice you essential liberty for security do you deserve either. As Libertarians we want and will fight for, freedom.
Statists, mostly liberals, try to claim some sort of moral superiority to their policies. The problem is that the reality of implementing “progressive” policies is that they actually make things worse, usually through predictable but unintended consequences.
US Citizens are some of the most productive in the world, last year we increased our productivity, not with more jobs, but by working harder. Contrast that with the citizens of liberal welfare states, who are increasingly narcissistic. A huge part of the citizenry of England, France, Germany, and other Western Europeans focus on how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state. The fact is most Americans work Harder than Europeans. The acceptable standard, work ethic, for people who would be free is superior to those who would depend on others to provide for them.
All the history and evidence of welfare in our country points to the simple fact that nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. The welfare state leads to the entitlement mentality – another expression of narcissism. Liberals then take what people need, use twisted and tortured logic and label it a right; this just reinforces this sense of entitlement. Leading large numbers of people to the idea that they have a right to the property or labor of others without having to pay for it.
The great society program of LBJ, institutionalized the welfare state. This corrupts family life. Even significant numbers of Democrats recognize the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. This makes fathers (males in general) unnecessary to women, who now have the state to support them and their children instead of husbands. The welfare state has become the husband to large numbers of women. It even rewards them more children outside of the traditional family structure.
Children raised in the welfare state tend not to mature into responsible adults. This specifically is an attack against men, who no longer aspire to hard work, and creation of their own family, and the accusation of wealth to pass down to their progeny. I believe my generation was the last of American men raised to believe that they had a bigger purpose in life than just their own happiness. This is why so many women lament the plethora of boy-men who haven’t grown up, and complain that they can’t find a man worth marrying. The liberal state has told men that they don’t have to support anybody, and that they can remain boys as long as they want.
Progressives’ entire world view is twisted. They don’t see that there is a battle in the world between good and evil, what they see is a battle as between rich and poor. They actually believe that equality is more important than morality. This is how they can cheer Cuban tyranny and curse American liberty. They really believe that the egalitarian redistribution of Cuba is superior has lead to a better life for all Cubans than the freedom and liberty and inequality of outcome that exists in America has lead to the quality of life for all Americans.
The most telling fact is that the bigger the government, the less the citizens do for each other. If the state will provide for me, and provide for my neighbors, they why should I. This is best shown in the fact that people who live in the welfare states of Western Europeans give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status. Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this almost 200 years ago, noting one of the most distinguishing characteristics of Americans from Europeans was how much Americans, through myriad private associations, care of one another. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous, until our path to the welfare state was stared under FDR and expanded by other liberal presidents. As the state has grown, our charities have declined. In Western Europe, they are virtually non-existant.
With a bigger state comes a vastly greater amount of corruption. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is an overused but none the less true statement. When a big business is caught in corruption, it goes out of business, people quit buying it’s products and services. Look at how fast News of the World disappeared. A government cannot be run out of business, but worse yet a corrupt business can’t just print money from thin air, nor can a business arrest you.
Of course statists will ignore all the caustic consequences of the policies of the liberal welfare state. They will call their policies “compassionate conservatism”, or “social justice” and label those who don’t believe in the welfare state as selfish or worse. The truth is the welfare state leads to moral decay and narcissism. The standards of those who love liberty and those who want a welfare stare are clearly defined, but taboo to talk about.
Libertarians in the USA are different from statists, although they have been born and raised within the statist environment; they have broken free of it, in both an intellectual and moral sense. Unlike statists, we recognize that statism isn’t freedom at all. Libertarians want to be free, with all that freedom entails.
Of necessity people who want and accept freedom tend to be to be people of high standards. If a free person takes actions that are not in his best interest, he must be prepared to take the consequences for those actions. A free person doesn't have government agencies bailing him out of every difficulty or excusing his behavior because life isn’t “fair.”
The truth is that unfree people usually succumb to having or acquiring low standards. Under the ruse of being "fair," the government removes the consequences of behavior. This results in the removal of feedback for our actions. With no negative feedback to unproductive or immoral actions, standards sink like a rock. When our motivation to provide for ourselves, and treat others as we would be treated, is removed; when there are no negative consequences to our behavior; when we accept that others have the right to tell us what to do, and tell our neighbors what they must do; when we accept that we are entitled to the labor and property of others; we have lost our the ability to self-govern. Dependency becomes a way of life. Not only do unfree people not respect their own liberty, they demonize those who would claim freedom for themselves.
The lack of respect for liberty, leads directly to lack of respect for life and property. The natural course of events is for authoritarians to reward themselves with special dispensations, to participate in gross immorality and to use imprisonment, torture and murder as tools of control. Nobody could have thought that those terms could be used to describe the US government. Now it is plain that the statists whether Democrat or Republican, that are currently in Washington share significant qualities that were once only considered qualities of unaccountable dictators.
Because too many have become effeminate and will sacrifice their liberty, freedom, and self-respect to provide security for themselves and/or their children, individual freedom, liberty and rights are no longer respected. No matter how much effort is put forth in ensuring "security" no one is ever truly secure. In order to guarantee complete security, you would have to accept restraints on your liberty to the point that you are no longer free. Worse yet to secure this “security” you must restrain your fellow man and take his property as well.
One of the biggest projections that fearful statists have is that those who value freedom and liberty would be the first to call on the government for help, if they were in need. This is merely the projection of their fear onto others. They cannot fathom that a person would rather suffer the consequences of life and their own actions than give up their freedom. They have been so wussified by the belief that there should be no suffering for making bad decisions, nor suffering if nature doesn’t treat you fairly, that they cannot even comprehend the idea that there are those who have such high standards and belief in themselves that they prefer freedom to security.
The total lack of respect for liberty is evident, they create regulations as to what food you can buy, what chemicals you can put in your body, and new even want to regulate the level of success an individual is allowed to obtain. Statists demonize anybody who wants liberty. They demand that everybody accept their low standards and reject the high standards and accountability that free men expect of themselves and others. They are more worried about how students feel about themselves than how they perform. They fear risk, so attempt to regulate it out of existence. They hate the fact that it is free people willing to take risk, invest, work, who don’t accept that their success/failure is based on the actions of others, who created a government that had severely limited powers, whose sole purpose was to protect the natural rights of the people from all enemies foreign and domestic, and allow the people them self-rule, not rule by some elite. No place else in the world embraced the scary idea that to ensure freedom, the people should allowed to govern themselves, that the consequences of self-governing are preferable to the security of statism.
Obama has repeatedly said that he believes he is a ruling elite who should have the authority to do what he thinks is best for everybody, and that the labor, property, and capital of all individuals should be his and the other ruling elites to use and (re)distribute as they see fit. He’s called the constitution “inconvenient” and routinely ignored it. The rule of law is bothersome, and he changes it to reward those he favors and punish those he doesn’t, of course, all for the good and security of the nation. The has told us we are too stupid to understand the debt, promised us transparency while doing more in secret than even Bush. He is a statist of the worst kind and has no respect for the liberty of the citizens of the country he was elected to lead not rule.
Libertarians believe that people should be free to engage in any occupation or profession without any government-issued license, permit, or other form of official permission. Let consumers, not the government, decide who engages in different lines of work. I trust the ASE to certify my mechanic not the government, and would trust the American Board of Thoracic Surgeons to certify my doctor far more than the government. Let free men decide not the government. Libertarians believe that people should be free to enter into mutually beneficial transactions with anyone else without interference by the government.
Libertarians believe that people should be free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and, equally important, to decide for themselves what to do with it — spend, save, invest, or donate it. Thus, we hold that people should be free to plan for their own retirement (or not), to donate to their church or other causes (or not), and to help out their elderly or ailing parents and grandparents (or not). Compare the human right standards of countries who are dependent upon foreign aid to those that are not.
Statists have low standards, don’t respect or trust the people to be free, they don’t respect the property of others, and don’t feel as though anybody should ever suffer as a result of bad decisions. So the Statists want to make all the decisions for everybody. This is hardly freedom, and the security they offer is just a lie to concentrate power among the ruling class. If you value security over freedom continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans, they will gladly promise you security in exchange for your freedom, property, and standard of living, you will get neither, nor if you would sacrifice you essential liberty for security do you deserve either. As Libertarians we want and will fight for, freedom.
Statists, mostly liberals, try to claim some sort of moral superiority to their policies. The problem is that the reality of implementing “progressive” policies is that they actually make things worse, usually through predictable but unintended consequences.
US Citizens are some of the most productive in the world, last year we increased our productivity, not with more jobs, but by working harder. Contrast that with the citizens of liberal welfare states, who are increasingly narcissistic. A huge part of the citizenry of England, France, Germany, and other Western Europeans focus on how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state. The fact is most Americans work Harder than Europeans. The acceptable standard, work ethic, for people who would be free is superior to those who would depend on others to provide for them.
All the history and evidence of welfare in our country points to the simple fact that nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. The welfare state leads to the entitlement mentality – another expression of narcissism. Liberals then take what people need, use twisted and tortured logic and label it a right; this just reinforces this sense of entitlement. Leading large numbers of people to the idea that they have a right to the property or labor of others without having to pay for it.
The great society program of LBJ, institutionalized the welfare state. This corrupts family life. Even significant numbers of Democrats recognize the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. This makes fathers (males in general) unnecessary to women, who now have the state to support them and their children instead of husbands. The welfare state has become the husband to large numbers of women. It even rewards them more children outside of the traditional family structure.
Children raised in the welfare state tend not to mature into responsible adults. This specifically is an attack against men, who no longer aspire to hard work, and creation of their own family, and the accusation of wealth to pass down to their progeny. I believe my generation was the last of American men raised to believe that they had a bigger purpose in life than just their own happiness. This is why so many women lament the plethora of boy-men who haven’t grown up, and complain that they can’t find a man worth marrying. The liberal state has told men that they don’t have to support anybody, and that they can remain boys as long as they want.
Progressives’ entire world view is twisted. They don’t see that there is a battle in the world between good and evil, what they see is a battle as between rich and poor. They actually believe that equality is more important than morality. This is how they can cheer Cuban tyranny and curse American liberty. They really believe that the egalitarian redistribution of Cuba is superior has lead to a better life for all Cubans than the freedom and liberty and inequality of outcome that exists in America has lead to the quality of life for all Americans.
The most telling fact is that the bigger the government, the less the citizens do for each other. If the state will provide for me, and provide for my neighbors, they why should I. This is best shown in the fact that people who live in the welfare states of Western Europeans give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status. Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this almost 200 years ago, noting one of the most distinguishing characteristics of Americans from Europeans was how much Americans, through myriad private associations, care of one another. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous, until our path to the welfare state was stared under FDR and expanded by other liberal presidents. As the state has grown, our charities have declined. In Western Europe, they are virtually non-existant.
With a bigger state comes a vastly greater amount of corruption. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is an overused but none the less true statement. When a big business is caught in corruption, it goes out of business, people quit buying it’s products and services. Look at how fast News of the World disappeared. A government cannot be run out of business, but worse yet a corrupt business can’t just print money from thin air, nor can a business arrest you.
Of course statists will ignore all the caustic consequences of the policies of the liberal welfare state. They will call their policies “compassionate conservatism”, or “social justice” and label those who don’t believe in the welfare state as selfish or worse. The truth is the welfare state leads to moral decay and narcissism. The standards of those who love liberty and those who want a welfare stare are clearly defined, but taboo to talk about.
LPF Success Story.
Although not mentioned in the main stream press, the hard fought campaign by the LPF, generally headed up by Radio Talk Show Host. Alex Snitker, has borne fruit. The City of Clearwater has decided NOT to install Red Light Cameras.
Clearwater is where the LPF had its first anti-red light camera demonstration. Yesterday’s news, and today’s St. Petersburg Times editorial document a small victory for the LPF. The city of Clearwater is not, and probably won't be installing RLC's.
Thanks to all the Libertarians who protested, and fought against RLC’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
