It's about Honesty

By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013

Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.

Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.

Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .

There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

. . . .

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.

So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.

When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.

Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?

Gun Control Realities

By Tom Rhodes, 4/8/13

The reality is the current gun control debate is about controlling the people, not guns, and the clear desire of statists in the Democrat party to the incremental disarmament of the American People. Although they try to say they believe in the Second Amendment, and "Nobody want to take away your guns," both their actions and words betray their intentions. Worse yet they don't even know what they are talking about.

Colorado Congress woman, Diana DeGette, showed the true intentions of Obama and the statists in the Democrat party when not once but three times demonstrated she's clueless about guns and accidentally let out their true desire. She is the lead sponsor of the cornerstone to proposed gun control legislation, the bill to ban high capacity magazines.

DeGette was soundly trashed and ridiculed across the internet (main stream media only reports statist approved stories) for her clear performance at the Denver Post forum on gun control. DeGette exposed the true intentions of gun controllers while simultaneously demonstrating she's totally ignorant of what she wants to legislate and restrict. She explained the genius behind banning high capacity magazines: "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

If you're reading this you probably know a magazine is a reloadable metal tube with a spring to feed bullets into a firearm, you'd think one of the primary sponsors of a bill legislating magazines would at least know the basics of what they are and how they are used. DeGette didn't, but once the firestorm on the net exploded over her "gaff" she quickly attempted damage control. Her spokesperson asserted the Representative meant to refer to "clips" not magazines. Now it's understandable for a non-gun person to confuse a clip and a magazine. A clip holds bullets for quick re-loading of magazines. But for a Congress woman who has "taken the lead on" this issue for years, this is arrogant ignorance at its finest. Not only are clips generally reusable like magazines, they are not the subject of DeGette's bill. Why on earth would she be referring to clips to correct her ignorance on magazines?

Now for strike three. At that same Denver Post Forum, when a senior citizen asked DeGette about having to rely on police response, rather than self defense, she reassured him noting that Denver police will be there within minutes, but "You'd probably be dead anyway." She made it clear that disarming or rendering the arms Americans have as useless because they don't have bullets is more important than the safety and well being of individual citizens.

Current law is clear, to prevent a backdoor gun registrations system, the law expressly prohibits the creation of "any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions." all it is supposed to do is verify that a purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, not track who has purchased what firearms, or even track if a person has purchased a firearm. The truth is the only loophole closed in the Leah-Schumer-Reid proposal for a "universal" background check, is the one that prohibits a national firearm registry. The loose language of the bill would allow the Department of Justice itself to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. It's gun registration no matter what they try to tell us.

Saying that the proposed universal back ground checks aren't a gun registration, is a lie. Without keeping track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners, they could never enforce their desires; they want and will keep permanent records of all firearm sales. This is a defacto gun registration system. What we are asked to believe is that our government can't keep track of its own borders or the 12 million people who live here illegally, but can keep track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners without registering all guns.

Why the fear of gun registration? Because not just in Europe but right here in the USA gun registration has led to gun confiscation. Not only could it happen here in the USA it has. In California after passing a law requiring registration of assault weapons, it then changed the law informed registered owners to turn them in. Letter from Calf. telling you to turn in your gun.

The statists have let it slip, the want total control of civilian gun ownership, the start is to identify where and who has the guns. Have no fear they won't send SWAT teams to your house to confiscate your gun, you'll just get a letter saying ". . . . our records indicate that you own a Bushmaster Model AR15 SN: 123456780, purchased 1/1/2013 from Joe's Gun Shop. Please turn this weapon in to your local Police dept. Should you fail to do so within 30 days an APB for your arrest will be issued, and the IRS will freeze all your bank accounts, and the Department of Transportation will revoke your driver's license. . . . "

Marriage - My Changed Position

By Tom Rhodes, 3/6/2013

I am a self proclaimed Christian Libertarian, and have defended the traditional definition of marriage and been against so called Gay-Marriage. My position has been that government shouldn't be in the marriage business, Period! Now I renounce my position and now support broader definitions of marriage. Not because I've changed my views or beliefs, but pragmatically it would be a wonderful method to hamstring government a little. The basis of legal homogamy is that if two people "love" each other they should be able to have long term committed relationship and legal rights as if they were "one" regardless of sex.

As the discussion in the Supreme Court has indicated, once homogamy is legal, the rationale for limiting polygamy will be non-existent. In fact a wide variety of "marriage" types would be viable. Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an in depth discussion on various types of marriages including two men and one women called a "troika," as well as "polyandries, clans, groups, lines, and less common patterns considered vulgar by conservative people."

Here is why I now support legal homogamy: It will save the family farm. Every year family farms are broken up and sold (usually to big conglomerates) because of the death of the farmer, the inheritance taxes are so great to pay them the farm must be sold. Once marriage has been redefined to be a joining of people who love each other not just a man and one or more women, the family farm will be saved. Legal homogamy will lead to the end of all inheritance taxes. As Jeremy Irons correctly identified, a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes.

The homosexual mantra is that if two individuals love each other they should be able to marry each other and receive the legal benefits of marriage. This will be a boon to partnerships of all kinds, two, or even three, four, or a dozen, who are partners in a business and want to avoid taxes and other legal intrusion of the government in their business could just get married. This would pretty much end any type of inheritance tax and insure the orderly transition of property from generation to generation without it being gobbled up by the government.

Like virtually all government regulation, there are unintended consequences. If we accept the idea that homosexuality is no longer immoral, what grounds do we have for not similarly declaring incest, polygamy, or any type of "love" to be morally acceptable as well? The homosexual lobby has not offered logical reasoning to this question. If traditional marriage, accepted by virtually all societies for thousands of years is no longer valid, why can't any variation of marriage be valid?

The objective truth is that two men or two women cannot ever marry because marriage is a particular relationship between a man and one or more women. Marriage and its definition predate every government on earth. Government didn't create marriage so should define it either. What is clear is that if the government doesn't get out of the marriage business, marriage will be meaningless and just another means of avoiding government taxes, and not a foundational institute of society.

In as much as the government generally perverts and corrupts most things it touches, marriage is no exception. Let's go ahead and allow any type of "marriage" to be legal, it will be the best method to insure pass down our property to our progeny and other loved ones. Widow or Widower near death yourself, don't want all your property to get gobbled up in taxes the solution is easy, marry your grandkid, that way when you die all your wealth is passed down without the government getting its greedy paws on it. Legalizing homogamy makes "marriage" meaningless, as long as we are going to do that, let's take advantage of it and screw the government out of inheritance taxes all together.

It's about Honesty

By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013

Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.

Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.

Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .

There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

. . . .

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.

So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.

When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.

Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?

GOP Stands for Nothing

By Tom Rhodes, 3/5/2013

The Republicans are attacking their roots, trying to “rebrand” themselves, and figure out why they lost and are not in power. The answer is simple, they don’t stand for anything, are inconsistent. “Big Government Lite” is not a solution to the leftist, statist, positions of the Democrats. The Democrats have credibility the Republicans don’t because they at least honest and unapologetic about standing for bigger government, more government control, and increased statism.

Consider the GOP position on gasoline taxes. As mark Hendrickson noted in his Forbes article, GOP legislators are against higher gasoline taxes to pay for infrastructure repairs to roads and bridges, actually complaining that motorists would end up bearing the cost of the tax hike. Duh! Motorists use the roads why shouldn’t they pay for their maintenance. The GOP position is that those who use the roads shouldn’t bear the cost of the roads? Taxes like fuel taxes expressly used to build and maintain roads are fair, just, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay the tax, ride a bike, live in a city and walk, etc. Want to pay less tax, drive less, get a more fuel efficient vehicle, etc.

Crying Social Security is insolvent and voting to reduce soc security revenue by 2% in 2010 is another example of inconsistent, non-policy. Does the GOP believe that government should be involved in citizens retirement funding? If so vote to fund it, if not get the government out of it, but take a consistent stand. The GOP claim of fiscal responsibility isn’t followed with voting or actions that support their claim. How is voting to reduce revenues for specific projects without voting to cut those projects spending fiscally responsible. The GOP claims they want to limit government spending, but then consistently claim that decreasing part of planed increases to spending is cutting spending. At least the Democrats are honest about not caring about deficits, and wanting to ever increase the size and power of government, they are honest statists.

Every time a Republican votes for some unfunded or underfunded government spending, they are loudly proclaiming their hypocrisy. Voting to try and improve the welfare state, rather than getting rid of it, is in direct conflict with the ideas they espouse. No rational voter can be assured of what the GOP will do, Obama won in 2012 with less total votes than he had in 2008, yet a higher percentage of the vote. The reason is clear, the GOP offered a statist, Romney, whose promise wasn’t to make government smaller, but protect big business. GOP voters didn’t bother, as the author of Romney care, the foundation of Obamacare, clearly didn’t represent the ideas the GOP claim to espouse.

As I’ve been claiming for years, the reality in voting patterns and protection of individual liberty the GOP is not functionally different than the Democrats. The reality is with Democrats promising food, clothing, and shelter to all at the expense of tax payers, and more Big Brother to take care of you, and the GOP promising smaller government but consistently delivering more power to Big Brother, why vote GOP, they are liars?

Last Night on John Stossel’s show arch conservative and Republican cheer leader Glen Beck boldly proclaimed that he was a Libertarian, renounced many of his past positions as wrong. Welcome aboard Mr. Beck, your newfound conversion to limited government is welcome. You have learned and now agree that voting for the GOP isn’t going to make you freer, reduce the size of government or even, as promised, reduce your actual tax burden. Voting for Democrats you will get what they promise, bigger government and more taxes. There is a clear different choice, but . . . . . that choice actually attempts to do what it says, reduce the size and scope of government. The Libertarian Party where elected won’t give you anarchy, but will wherever it can actually reduce the size of government and work to limit the power and authority of the state. That means it will let you keep more of what you earn but it won’t take care of you. Having the freedom to keep what you earn assumes you are responsible to provide for yourself.

As Libertarians, we need to welcome those abandoning the GOP with open arms. They don’t have perfect libertarian philosophy, but only accepting perfect libertarians hasn’t worked out so well for us. We are better off with and can make a bigger difference with libertarian leaning conservatives joining us than kicking them out because they are still learning and don’t quite get the minutia of this libertarian thought.

Women Don’t Want Equality

by Tom Rhodes, 4/1/13

There is a Facebook image going around of a young woman, decrying the fact that now that she is back from military duty overseas and the courts have not returned her kid to her. You see her child is now in the legal custody of the father, who was granted custody because her mother could not take care of the child while stationed at the far corners of the earth. She is making an emotional appeal on Facebook decrying how unfair it is that she hasn’t been given her child back. This is not evidence of any wrong doing by either the government or the child’s father, just evidence that women want special privileges and rights based on their emotions, and to never suffer consequences of their life choices.



This is evidence that women don’t want equality under the law but instead want preferential treatment. There is no evidence that the father is not providing a good home for his child. The only rationale is to forget a stable environment for the child and grant the woman her way, regardless of the choices she made, regardless of the father’s rights, and regardless of what’s in the best interest of the child. The military is completely volunteer, she wasn’t drafted, thus her status in the military is completely her choice. She claims she joined to make a better life for her son but obviously she didn’t think that decision through; how can making a career choice as a single parent that in all probability will result in long term separation from your child, rationally be considered to make things better for that child. Being in the military and sent overseas will put a big crimp in one’s ability to be a single parent. You cannot join the military, either active or reserves or national guard, and not know that you will in all likelihood be deployed overseas at some point. Thus she knew her ability to be a good single parent is questionable with the other legal commitments she chose to make. Her choice clearly show that she has put herself as a priority over her child or didn’t understand the ramifications of her choice in either case the courts determined the best interest of the boy was to be with his dad. How does the fact that she’s no longer in the military negate that decision by the courts?

The question is: Why should her desire to be her son’s custodial parent take precedence over the court’s decision and fathers ability and willingness to be his son’s custodial parent? Unlike other careers, a military career has the instability of being stationed in unsafe environments to raise children. Women who have children and choose to join the military are clearly making choices that put their career ahead of being a parent. What basis do the courts have for taking a child away from a father who currently provides a stable home for his son and returning him to a mother whose previous choices have proven to create an unstable living conditions?

Why should this woman not have to suffer the consequences of her choices? Women demand equality under the law, equality in the work place, yet when they are treated the way a man would be treated in a similar circumstance they decry the fact. How is it fair to the father and son, to have their stable home torn apart, because the woman is back from overseas? This woman no longer has custodial rights and care of her child because of her choices, this father and son should not be forced to uproot and put their lives in turmoil because of this woman’s changing, poorly reasoned, career choices. There is no evidence that her emotional desire to be mommy, will provide any better life for her son than being with his father. Without any evidence other than her desperate emotional attempt to generate support, this is appears to be a case where the courts rightly dismissed the female emotional response, and rationally concluded that the boy is better off with his dad.

Equality vs. Reality

By Tom Rhodes 3/27/2013

Until political correctness overtook the USA, "equality" in the legal sense generally meant that everybody was treated equally under the law, not that everybody had an equal outcome in life. The fact is nowhere in history has the utopian idea that all people are equal ever been observed. The very idea that everyone is "equal," or should be equal is absurd. The utopian thinking that tries to dictate equality of outcome for everybody has and will continue to push towards despotic rule and diminish liberty.

Are men and woman equal? Of course they aren't so they won't have equal outcomes in a variety of ways. All people are individuals and different but there are measurably more genius men than women (7 times to be exact). You can also prove that there men are far more likely than women to be idiots. On average you could argue that women are marginally smarter than men, but on the extremes it is clear that there are more overly smart men than women, and there are more overly dumb men than women. Because men exhibit more outliers at the extremes of the intellect spectrum. This means a disproportionate number of men will win Nobel science prizes than women, not because there is a bias in the Nobel prize system.

How about speed, is it fair that 95% of the top sprinting records are awarded to people who trace their ancestry to West Africa. If you are a betting person you could make a lot of money betting on the origins of professional US Hockey Players, the majority are born in either Minnesota or Massachusetts. Utopian thinkers conclude that if there is a disparity of outcome there must have been some oppression or "privilege" that created the un-equal outcomes. This is a lie, and they know it. If it weren't a lie then they would be denouncing the NBA and NFL for being biased against Asians and Hispanics. Blacks make up 13% of the US population yet comprise 90% of professional basketball teams and 80% of professional football teams and are the highest paid players in both sports, there are more Hispanics in the country than blacks, only an idiot would think that this is evidence that there is bias against Hispanics in professional basketball and football.

There are many disproportionate distributions of outcomes. How are utopian thinkers going to correct the unequal outcome between men and women when it comes to lightning strikes? Men are struck by lightning 6 times more often than women, something must be done to make things equal.

The only way to justify utopian equality of outcome thinking is to reject rational thought, observation, history and the scientific method. Expecting equal outcomes by race, sex, national origin, religion, or any other observable difference in humans is sloppy un-reasoned thinking. There is absolutely zero evidence from anytime, or anyplace, that proportional outcomes have existed as a norm under any circumstance on the earth. The idea that disproportionate outcomes of any kind is proof of inequality before the law is a purely emotional desire for equality that has never and will never exist. The best we can do and the only thing we should strive for is that every individual is given equal treatment before the law. The differences in people based on race, creed, sex, etc. will result in different outcomes, that is not evidence bias. It is only evidence that although everybody is a person, not all people are the same and that certain groups of people have consistent and similar variations in their gene pool.

If you believe or argue that there are more white male CEO's and they make more money than black male CEO's is proof of racism, but fail to make the same racist argument about there being more and higher paid black than white football players you are being intellectually and factually dishonest. The academic and lawyer arguments that different outcomes is proof of bias is not justified in fact and causes significant unequal treatment of people based on race, sex, country of origin, etc. The idea and goal should be equal treatment under the law, not equal outcomes. The only way to get equal outcomes based on race, sex, or whatever, is to eliminate individual liberty and allow a tyrannical government to dictate the outcome of everything. Reality is that all people are not equal, some are smarter, some are faster, some are stronger, some have more drive, some are prettier, punishing those who are superior in some part of their being to others is not equality it's tyranny and flies in the face of reality.

Middle Class Going Galt

By Tom Rhodes, 3/20/2013

"Going Galt" a libertarian phrase that's not familiar to a lot of people but is gaining popularity in the public lexicon. It refers to people moving or taking other actions to reduce the amount of money confiscated by government, by taking their property and business outside of the government's confiscation ability. The most famous example in the US is Phil Mickelson contemplating retiring or moving to avoid excessive taxes. The news was filled with examples are French moving to England, Luxemburg, etc. to avoid new confiscatory taxes. Even extreme lefty Bill Maher is saying the Rich Pay their fair share.

It's relatively easy, for a person like Phil Mickelson, to go Galt. He has enough assets to live out his life comfortably without ever working again. For the average middle class person it's not so easy, but it's not impossible. The middle class going Galt is why Detroit went from an industrial powerhouse to a wasteland. Those people and businesses who could, left. My parents went Galt and escaped Detroit in 1972. What do I mean by they went Galt?

My dad left a major company in Detroit working as an automotive engineer with several prominent patents to his name to working as an electrician Florida. Went debt free and stayed that way. He went from working 70 hour work weeks to 40, but by moving to a state without income taxes, and a much smaller government foot print, we lived a similar standard of living on less total money. Much of America is doing just that. Private debt has fallen significantly since the bubble burst in 2008. Although many idiots still live with excessive credit card and other debt, much of America is listening to Dave Ramsey and seriously getting debt free, no credit card debt, no car payment, not even a mortgage if possible.

This is how the middle class go Galt. When the middle class decides to buy a $2500 clunker instead of plopping $2500 down on a new car and paying $400/mo to service that new debt, it changes the game. Banks don't make interest and the government is denied taxes from the sale of a new car. The more people do this the more it hurts the WallStreet-Kstreet cabal. It helps out your local garage, and smaller business.

The most common example of going Galt is Retirees, who do it all the time. Work and live in NY or Wisconsin for 40 years, then take your toys and move to Florida to retire, avoiding the property, income, and other taxes of those socialist states. Yes the weather is better, but more importantly the government no longer gets significant parts of your retirement income. Moderate homes in low crime areas are available in Florida for less than $75K, and have less than $1000/yr property taxes. Sell your Appleton Wi, home for a quarter million, move to Florida, pocket $150K, and reduce your annual tax burden by $4K/year. Put that money you profited from the sale of your home into a modest investment account, and it will return $6K a year. Thus moving from Appleton to a small town in Florida nets Grandma and Grandpa $10K a year and they don't have to shovel the sidewalk.

Taking your money out of the bank, buying silver or gold, or other tangible assets is also part of going Galt. Using cash and barter are all going Galt. Living smaller than you have too and saving is going Galt. Small businesses that decide to stay under 50 employees when they could expand but the owner decides the extra government intrusion isn't worth the effort is going Galt.

The fact is, like every similar society in history before us, our society is degrading and disintegrating economically, politically, socially, morally and spiritually. America is in permanent decline, period. Statists and leftists want to erode private property rights to prolong the illusion that our society is still stable and viable. The statists depend on a "dependent" society. Being independent, able to farm your own yard, fix your own car, live within your means, trade and barter and avoid the government is all part of going Galt. Those actions are make you independent, they are also biblical; 1ST Thessalonians 4:11-12 says, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

You don't have to be rich to go Galt, just quit playing the statist game.

Best Money I Ever Spent.

By Tom Rhodes, 3/18/2013

A little over 2 years ago I replaced my antique thermostat with a programmable digital thermostat that cost me $25 from the local hardware store. I set the cooling program to only cool to 85 degrees from 7AM to 3:30PM, and from 3:30PM to 7AM cool to 80 degrees. I set the heating program to only heat the house to 60 except from 5:30 to 7 am and from 3:30PM to 10PM where I heat to 70 degrees. Although weekend programs can be different this is the schedule for every day. If I’m home during the hot part of the day on weekends I override the program. The results were excellent. Heating and cooling are weather dependent, so results will vary and this is not a savings for anybody whose house isn't consistently empty for significant parts of the day; but I’ve averaged using about 250KWH less electricity every month (right at 25% less electricity). It’s an important 250KWH as it keeps me under 1000KWH/month and they charge more for every KWH over 1000/month. The results since installing it are that I’ve saved over $750. My bank account isn't $750 bigger but I have more motorcycle farkles.

So an investment of $25 and 30 min of my time resulted in an average of saving $30/month every month. Even if I paid an HVAC company to replace the thermostat and paid 5 times as much, a modern digital thermostat correctly programmed can be a huge savings. The studies show that this isn’t typical and programmable thermostats don’t make a difference. Because most homes don’t sit empty for 9-12 hours a day to take advantage of programming less heating and cooling while a home is empty, this should be no surprise.

I know it's not the usual political subject, but think of it this way, the results are by reducing my electric usage by 25%, not only did save money but I denied the government about 25% of the tax dollars they would have collected based on my electrical consumption. So by reducing my spending on a federally taxed product, I’m starving the beast, and starving the beast is good. It's also an example of how efficient the voluntary free market can work to lower costs and put more money in everybody's pocket.

On a personal note, I work for the power company, so don’t any of you follow my example, it might cut into my 401K.

Is VP Responsible?

By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2012

Does Brian Szymanski living in Green Acres Delaware have a case against VP Joe Biden. Taking Delaware's Favorite Son and Vice President Joe Biden's advice Mr. Szymanski discharged his shotgun outside his back door. The result was the New Castle County Police arresting him and charging him with reckless endangering in the first degree and discharging rifles or other explosives. No injuries or property damage were reported.

While explaining that you don't "need" and assault weapon, and are better off with a double barreled shotgun, Joe Biden publicly said he had advised his wife, Jill, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." Joe Biden is part of the ruling elite; he knows that if he or his wife had done as he recommended she would not face any criminal charges. What he and the other ruling elite in Washington forget is that unlike them, everybody else is expected to follow the law.


Not only was Biden's advice bad advice, he recommended something that is clearly illegal. In Joe Biden's home state, Delaware, the law is clear; it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. As Mr. Szymanski found out shooting a gun in the air results in felony reckless endangering and other charges. Mr. Szymanski is obviously not all there, he probably didn't even know that his actions were the exact actions Vice President Joe Biden advised his wife and all of America to take. Biden has once again proven himself to be a gaff prone idiot, unless of course he's a sneaky cunning Machiavellian manipulator who is trying to dupe law abiding gun owners into illegal in order to forfeit their gun rights. . . . Can't be; you know the old expression, if it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, then it must be an idiot; Biden's an idiot.

Shooting anytime you don't know exactly what you're shooting at is irresponsible and a clear violation of the most fundamental firearm safety rules. These rules are part of every set of rules at every shooting range, or rules recommended by any gun organization, or any group that uses guns for any reason. Nobody who owns a gun and has bothered to read any owner's manual or taken any concealed weapons course hasn't heard or read them in some form or another.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Joe Biden's recommendation was not only ill advised and contrary to the most basic gun safety rules, and illegal in his home state, they clearly demonstrate his ignorance. His ignorance makes him dangerous, as are most of the ignorant ideas uneducated anti-gun leftists spew regularly.

Too bad we don't actually hold politicians accountable. If we did then Brian Szymanski would have a case against VP Joe Biden. But the reality is that both the rule of law and equality under the law are dead in the USA. The laws that apply to you, me, and most everybody else do not apply to the elitists in Washington. Follow the advice of the ruling elite at your own peril.