By Tom Rhodes, 1/31/2013
The is good reasoning to think that the proposed ban on modern sporting rifles, mis-named "assault weapons," will not meet constitutional muster. Modern sporting rifles, shooting relatively low powered .223 caliber rounds, including Armalite's Model 15 rifle and other manufactures versions are not assault weapons, they do not use high powered rounds, do not shoot automatically, and Homeland Defense considers them to be "personal defense weapons." That said, Feinstein's proposed ban of AR-15 and similar weapons if passed will probably be defeated on constitutional grounds.
The right to arms is a pre-existing right that our constitution declares the government shall not infringe. In the Miller case, the SCOTUS decision justified limitations on some weapons, specifically sawed off shotguns, because the sawed-off shotgun served no military purpose and was not in common use. The SCOTUS declared that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." The AR-15 is in common use by our police departments and the people, and the full automatic version the M16 and its variants are the common weapon of our military at this time.
The Heller decision, the SCOTUS overturned the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, noting that are overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self-defense. "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In addition to a detachable magazine, the following features are what Feinstein says make a rifle an "assault weapon:" threaded barrel, barrel shroud, folding stock, telescopic stock, thumbhole stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc. None of these features changes the performance or ability of the rifle, all they do is subjectively make the rifle more comfortable for the user. How does any of these features make a rifle more dangerous? What of these features overwhelming chosen by Americans and in common use today grants the government the authority to restrict their ownership? Even the liberal members of the SCOTUS are logical people, the so called assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein even if passed will not survive legal challenges.
Traditionalists my not like the look of modern sporting weapons, but like the bolt action hunting rifle so popular today was based on military assault weapons of WWI and WWII, the AR-15 style modern sporting rifle is what a modern rifle looks like. The M1 was a popular civilian rifle after WWII. Springfield's M1A civilian variant of the Korean War M14 is popular today. Today shooters use semi-automatic civilian version of the military's M16, for recreation, hunting, and self defense. Civilian rifles do not have the same capabilities that the military versions have, period.
Nearly 5 million modern sporting rifles have been sold in the past 20 years, and current manufactures aren't accepting new orders because they have more than a one year back log. Obviously the modern sporting rifle is in common use at this time. The data is clear AR-15 style weapons meet both the SCOTUS Miller and Heller decisions, they are "overwhelmingly chosen by American society" and "in common use at the time."
All Supreme Court of the United States rulings to date make it clear that banning modern sporting rifles is clearly unconstitutional.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Fiscal Conservatives Kicked Obama's Ass
By Tom Rhodes, 1/30/2013
Amazing the Tea Party Conservatives have won a major battle and most people don't even know it; the left claimed victory but in reality lost. I loathe John Boehner, but he is good, he kicked Obama's ass without the left even knowing it. Let's look at the facts. The debt ceiling fight was kicked out until May, but... that doesn't include the sequester fight. Boehner successfully separated borrowing from spending into two distinct issues, and to get massive spending cuts all the house has to do is . . . . NOTHING.
Boehner managed to engineer making the Bush Tax cuts permanent for all but about 1% of the people; and they have the ability to hide income and avoid the increase in taxes anyway, always have always will. In the WSJ he said, "Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad." You just gotta love the left claiming victory, for a 3.6% increase on people making double what Obama campaigned.
The new law is set up to only allow new borrowing only to meet obligations "outstanding on May 19, 2013." Because of how government spending and budgets work this effectively put a freeze on new spending. So debt limit and spending are now separated, and new spending is frozen, and automatic spending cuts are about to go into effect. This is a BIG win for fiscal conservatism, regardless of Obama demanding ever more spending.
The New York Times reported that Democrat Senator Charles E. Schumer said, "The president stared down the Republicans. They blinked," while failing to even notice that the fiscal conservatives won the spending cut battle without a fight. The automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs-defense and domestic, is still in place. because it included deep defense cuts President Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester; they ignored it. Spending cuts are automatic and will happen if the GOP has the guts to do nothing, and it looks like they aren't bluffing.
The defense cuts that will happen are significant, but don't even reduce the size of the DOD to 2007 levels, hardly an inadequate budget, and not nearly the size or scope of previous postwar drawdowns. This once again put's the Tea Party in Boehner's camp, as it looks like he is acting with integrity as a genuine conservative serious about reducing spending. He claims to have significant Republican support, even from GOP defense hawks, for letting the sequester "do its work."
I hate to say it but objectively looking at what's happening, Boehner maximized the House Republican majority to force the Democrat controlled senate and President, into making real spending cuts without them even knowing it. It's hard to believe but we may see our government controlled by a Democrat President, with a Democrat Senate be the first since before the Korean War to actually reduce government spending. Hat's off to John Boehner, engineer of a fiscal conservative coup while in a minority.
If only they don't cave. Without the 100 Tea Party members of the House there can't be a law passed to stop the automatic spending cuts. Now it's time for you to put pressure on your Tea Party Republican to allow the automatic spending cuts to happen.
Amazing the Tea Party Conservatives have won a major battle and most people don't even know it; the left claimed victory but in reality lost. I loathe John Boehner, but he is good, he kicked Obama's ass without the left even knowing it. Let's look at the facts. The debt ceiling fight was kicked out until May, but... that doesn't include the sequester fight. Boehner successfully separated borrowing from spending into two distinct issues, and to get massive spending cuts all the house has to do is . . . . NOTHING.
Boehner managed to engineer making the Bush Tax cuts permanent for all but about 1% of the people; and they have the ability to hide income and avoid the increase in taxes anyway, always have always will. In the WSJ he said, "Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn't get that. And so, not bad." You just gotta love the left claiming victory, for a 3.6% increase on people making double what Obama campaigned.
The new law is set up to only allow new borrowing only to meet obligations "outstanding on May 19, 2013." Because of how government spending and budgets work this effectively put a freeze on new spending. So debt limit and spending are now separated, and new spending is frozen, and automatic spending cuts are about to go into effect. This is a BIG win for fiscal conservatism, regardless of Obama demanding ever more spending.
The New York Times reported that Democrat Senator Charles E. Schumer said, "The president stared down the Republicans. They blinked," while failing to even notice that the fiscal conservatives won the spending cut battle without a fight. The automatic spending sequester trigger that trims all discretionary programs-defense and domestic, is still in place. because it included deep defense cuts President Obama was sure Republicans would call for ending the sequester; they ignored it. Spending cuts are automatic and will happen if the GOP has the guts to do nothing, and it looks like they aren't bluffing.
The defense cuts that will happen are significant, but don't even reduce the size of the DOD to 2007 levels, hardly an inadequate budget, and not nearly the size or scope of previous postwar drawdowns. This once again put's the Tea Party in Boehner's camp, as it looks like he is acting with integrity as a genuine conservative serious about reducing spending. He claims to have significant Republican support, even from GOP defense hawks, for letting the sequester "do its work."
I hate to say it but objectively looking at what's happening, Boehner maximized the House Republican majority to force the Democrat controlled senate and President, into making real spending cuts without them even knowing it. It's hard to believe but we may see our government controlled by a Democrat President, with a Democrat Senate be the first since before the Korean War to actually reduce government spending. Hat's off to John Boehner, engineer of a fiscal conservative coup while in a minority.
If only they don't cave. Without the 100 Tea Party members of the House there can't be a law passed to stop the automatic spending cuts. Now it's time for you to put pressure on your Tea Party Republican to allow the automatic spending cuts to happen.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Limbaugh agrees with LP on the GOP and Dems
By Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2013
The almighty El-Rushbo has finally realized what the LP has been saying for decades. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, they are simply two factions of the ruling elite in Washington DC.
The almighty El-Rushbo has finally realized what the LP has been saying for decades. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, they are simply two factions of the ruling elite in Washington DC.
"You know what this was? This was perhaps, folks, one of the best illustrations of the whole concept that we've spoken here about on numerous occasions of the ruling class, the political class. It doesn't matter what party, they're all part of the ruling class, the political class in DC, and when the rubber hits the road, they all circle the wagons around each other. Well, the Republicans join in circling the wagons. The Democrats never do when it's a Republican involved, but for the most part they do. They close ranks, and they protect one another because what they're protecting is themselves."
"They're protecting the ruling class, the political elites, and they're maintaining the status quo.... So what we had here, folks, was the ruling class circling the wagons and protecting each other. Party affiliation did not matter. We're always hoping at hearings like this that somebody on our side is gonna stand up and give the Democrats what-for, somebody is gonna stand up and nail 'em to the cross or whatever, ask the tough questions, get to the bottom of it just as the Democrats do with our judicial nominees or anybody in our party who falls in the crosshairs. We keep waiting for it, and it never happens. They never do it."
~ Rush Limbaugh
Monday, January 21, 2013
Do you have a right to privacy?
By Tom Rhodes, 1/21/2013
If you believe the sum of the Bill of Rights implies that you have right to privacy then what do you do about the government violating that right? Are you consistent in your belief in a right to privacy? If the decision to have an abortion is a privacy decision between a doctor and the patient, then should all medical records and choices be just as private? Should what you choose to eat or drink be a private decision between you and your chef? Should the government know what you choose to read, should your reading decisions be a choice between you and your librarian?
Right now the government commands every business and internet provider who has an email server to keep copies of all emails ever sent or received forever. The government cannot command any person from keeping their post mail forever. The idea that the government could force FedEx or UPS to open and retain a copy every document they deliver is reprehensible and clearly unreasonable. Why does modern technology, and private not public delivery systems grant them the authority to require copies of all mail be retained forever? Imagine the outcry if the government directed the post office to open and make a copy of every letter, postcard, periodical, ever sent, who sent it to whom from where and to where.
Ever read the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution? It reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This begs the question: What exactly is unreasonable? The dictionary says that something that is unreasonable is not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate.
We instituted our government to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It cannot be reasonable argued that a people under continuous government surveillance, can be free to pursue happiness, much less be happy. The constitution is clear, that for the government to look at a person, their property, and their papers (communications) the government must have some probable cause for wrong doing, and may only look for what they specifically have cause to see. That means that they have to have some reasonable suspicion of some wrong doing before they can open your mail, look in your closet, peek in your safety deposit box, etc., and have a judge affirm by warrant that they have grounds to look at your stuff.
Why is it reasonable for the government to require businesses and individuals to report activity to law enforcement agencies simply because private and legal activity is taking place. What is reasonable about the government requiring cell phone companies to keep copies of every text sent? What probable cause is there for the government to have access to that data without a warrant, is the fact that technology has negated requiring actual "paper" to record transactions and communications make them any less your papers? With no evidence of criminal behavior what is the reasonable justification to constantly monitor all persons emails, travel and financial transactions.
What reasonable justification is there to create databases of personal information, medical records, and communications without consent, probable cause, or a warrant?
What reasonable justification is there to require the registration of legally owned private property without consent, probable cause, or a warrant?
What reasonable justification is there to assume that just because a person is traveling that they consent to being searched. How is it reasonable for the government to take away persons right to travel, merely by putting their name on a secret list, without demonstrating probable cause or due process in a court of law?
Why is your email not as sacred, and as protected your physical mail? Is that reasonable? Does the fact that your papers are now composed and stored electronically make them any less your papers than if you'd created them with a quill ink on parchment? Are your computer files any less your effects because they are electronic, than a photo album in your sock drawer? The imagery of government officials coming into your house and rifling through your file cabinet, closet, attic, and sock drawer searching for some evidence of crime with no warrant and no probable cause is a tyrannical image of an abusive government that outrages us all. Yet the image of some nerdy government official tapping away at a keyboard in some fare away cubical to rifle through your neighbors files and internet activity seems reasonable, and doesn't stir emotional outrage.
As an American you should oppose the power of government at all levels to monitor, account for, and keep under surveillance its citizens, especially where there is no evidence of criminal behavior. Without a warrant the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses and individuals to report activity to law enforcement agencies simply because private and legal activity is taking place. You as an American should oppose all laws that legitimize the means, without probable cause, to universally monitor personal mails, travel and finance. As an American you should deny your government the ability, power, and authority to create databases of personal information, medical records, and communications without consent. As an American you should reject the idea that you must register personal property. And as an American you should deny the government the use of technology to continually observe you and your neighbor. We should oppose the searching of travelers without probable cause. Not only are these violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but they in many cases universal government surveillance violate the first, second, fifth, ninth, tenth and fourteenth amendments as well.
Technology has outpaced the law. People and government can use technology in ways never before imagined. Our government now considers searching through every email and text of every person as reasonable. Not because your personal correspondence is any less your personal papers and effect, but because they now have the technology to do so. Why is that reasonable or constitutional? Why does the ability to search everything grant the government a compelling interest that justifies the authority to search every email and text without a warrant? What enumerated constitutional power grants the government have to monitor its citizens?
If you believe the sum of the Bill of Rights implies that you have right to privacy then what do you do about the government violating that right? Are you consistent in your belief in a right to privacy? If the decision to have an abortion is a privacy decision between a doctor and the patient, then should all medical records and choices be just as private? Should what you choose to eat or drink be a private decision between you and your chef? Should the government know what you choose to read, should your reading decisions be a choice between you and your librarian?
Right now the government commands every business and internet provider who has an email server to keep copies of all emails ever sent or received forever. The government cannot command any person from keeping their post mail forever. The idea that the government could force FedEx or UPS to open and retain a copy every document they deliver is reprehensible and clearly unreasonable. Why does modern technology, and private not public delivery systems grant them the authority to require copies of all mail be retained forever? Imagine the outcry if the government directed the post office to open and make a copy of every letter, postcard, periodical, ever sent, who sent it to whom from where and to where.
Ever read the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution? It reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This begs the question: What exactly is unreasonable? The dictionary says that something that is unreasonable is not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate.
We instituted our government to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It cannot be reasonable argued that a people under continuous government surveillance, can be free to pursue happiness, much less be happy. The constitution is clear, that for the government to look at a person, their property, and their papers (communications) the government must have some probable cause for wrong doing, and may only look for what they specifically have cause to see. That means that they have to have some reasonable suspicion of some wrong doing before they can open your mail, look in your closet, peek in your safety deposit box, etc., and have a judge affirm by warrant that they have grounds to look at your stuff.
Why is it reasonable for the government to require businesses and individuals to report activity to law enforcement agencies simply because private and legal activity is taking place. What is reasonable about the government requiring cell phone companies to keep copies of every text sent? What probable cause is there for the government to have access to that data without a warrant, is the fact that technology has negated requiring actual "paper" to record transactions and communications make them any less your papers? With no evidence of criminal behavior what is the reasonable justification to constantly monitor all persons emails, travel and financial transactions.
What reasonable justification is there to create databases of personal information, medical records, and communications without consent, probable cause, or a warrant?
What reasonable justification is there to require the registration of legally owned private property without consent, probable cause, or a warrant?
What reasonable justification is there to assume that just because a person is traveling that they consent to being searched. How is it reasonable for the government to take away persons right to travel, merely by putting their name on a secret list, without demonstrating probable cause or due process in a court of law?
Why is your email not as sacred, and as protected your physical mail? Is that reasonable? Does the fact that your papers are now composed and stored electronically make them any less your papers than if you'd created them with a quill ink on parchment? Are your computer files any less your effects because they are electronic, than a photo album in your sock drawer? The imagery of government officials coming into your house and rifling through your file cabinet, closet, attic, and sock drawer searching for some evidence of crime with no warrant and no probable cause is a tyrannical image of an abusive government that outrages us all. Yet the image of some nerdy government official tapping away at a keyboard in some fare away cubical to rifle through your neighbors files and internet activity seems reasonable, and doesn't stir emotional outrage.
As an American you should oppose the power of government at all levels to monitor, account for, and keep under surveillance its citizens, especially where there is no evidence of criminal behavior. Without a warrant the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses and individuals to report activity to law enforcement agencies simply because private and legal activity is taking place. You as an American should oppose all laws that legitimize the means, without probable cause, to universally monitor personal mails, travel and finance. As an American you should deny your government the ability, power, and authority to create databases of personal information, medical records, and communications without consent. As an American you should reject the idea that you must register personal property. And as an American you should deny the government the use of technology to continually observe you and your neighbor. We should oppose the searching of travelers without probable cause. Not only are these violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but they in many cases universal government surveillance violate the first, second, fifth, ninth, tenth and fourteenth amendments as well.
Technology has outpaced the law. People and government can use technology in ways never before imagined. Our government now considers searching through every email and text of every person as reasonable. Not because your personal correspondence is any less your personal papers and effect, but because they now have the technology to do so. Why is that reasonable or constitutional? Why does the ability to search everything grant the government a compelling interest that justifies the authority to search every email and text without a warrant? What enumerated constitutional power grants the government have to monitor its citizens?
NYTimes Calls for Tyranny
By Tom Rhodes, 1/21/2013
New York Times op-ed Op-Ed Contributor Wendy Button clearly confirms what I've been saying. Although very politically incorrect, it is clear evidence of the fact that a segment of our population would rather suffer the consequences of being defenseless than accept the responsibility of self-security. Here is her plea<= to have the government protect her from herself and what she's willing to sacrifice to feel protected.
OK first off, suicide is not dependent upon a firearm, Japan has a much higher rate of suicide that the US and far fewer guns. When you consider the fact that overdosing on pain meds now claims more lives than auto accidents and far more than gun related deaths of any type taking away her Second Amendment right won't make her safer from herself. It will however make any man who attempts to rape her 10 times more likely to succeed. She used government stats to support her claims, she ignored a bunch of them though. Like the fact that according to the FBI less than 3 in 100 rape attempts are successful if the woman is armed, while 3 in 10 are successful when the woman is unarmed.
The fact is women have historically proven individually and as a group to be willing to sacrifice liberty, and personal responsibility, for security. To women security is more important than liberty. You can see the evidence in the number of women who stay with an abusive relationship, because the security he provides outweighs the freedom from occasional abuse.
The problem with people like Wendy Button is that she assumes everybody believes as she does, she assumes that no rational person would prefer being self reliant than being protected by the government, even from themselves; she believes that nobody should have the liberty to take risks for themselves she doesn't want to take for herself.
I'd be willing to bet Ms. Button doesn't own a gun, so taking away her right to own one would not affect her in any way. The main stream press agrees with her, they routinely don't cover and spike stories where individuals use guns in self defense. Where was the wall to wall coverage of a mom saving her kids shooting intruders breaking into her home. Ms. Button wants to deny mothers an effective means of protecting their children, so that she can feel safe knowing that if she get's depressed she'll have to jump off a bridge instead of shooting herself. She knows she isn't capable of taking care of herself, and being responsible for her own actions, so projects her lack of confidence and fear to everybode else.
Ms. Button, the solution is far simpler, you don't need the government to keep you from owning a gun. If you are afraid on some dark lonely night that the evil call that the raven, tapping, rapping, banging desire of relief from your depression will cause you to pick up your gun and kill yourself, then don't buy a gun. What makes you think because you're an insecure person who doesn't even trust herself that nobody else can be trusted, and that nobody else should have the right to Keep and Bear arms? What evidence do you have that the government will take better care of you than you can yourself. Do all those who live off the government, in government housing, fed by the government with SNAP, WIC, etc. have better lives than those who are self reliant and provide for themselves. You may want the government to save you from yourself, but who's going to save you from the government?
If you allow them to take away your right to Keep and Bear Arms for your own good, what makes you think they won't take away your right to a jury trial for your own good; after all if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, how could we be trusted to determine who should and shouldn't go to jail.
What about your right to privacy; if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, doesn't the government have the right to see all your papers, medical records, and track your every purchase and movement so that they can better protect you from yourself? Who needs the Fourth Amendment, it severely impedes the government's ability to protect us from ourselves.
What about our unspecified rights; if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, doesn't the government have the right limit our activities? Who really needs to play football or volleyball or baseball or race cars or ride horses or ride bicycles, to keep us safe from ourselves does should the government restrict us to only low impact aerobic exercise, and sports that have zero danger. In fact to protect us from ourselves shouldn't the government be even be allowed to require a certain amount of low impact aerobic exercise per week, and limit our television time, and so that we don't get any bad ideas that could lead to self destructive or dangerous behavior; shouldn't the government take away our right to read watch or produce books, movies, songs etc. that could be harmful. You might read a sad story that makes you depressed and then shoot yourself. Having a government that has the power and authority to protect us from ourselves sounds a lot like tyranny.
Obviously New York Times op-ed contributor Wendy Button is using her emotions not logic and reason to call on government to take away her rights for her own good. Clearly she hasn't thought out what a government that for her own good can determine what is and isn't in her best interest, can dictate and monitor her every action. She is clearly neither emotionally nor intellectually mature enough to handle liberty. That's the battle folks, a feminized society that feels security is more valuable than liberty and doesn't think things through. We instituted our government to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to protect us from ourselves. You can't have liberty and be protected from yourself. The call to have a government big enough, strong enough, and powerful enough to protect us from ourselves, is a call for tyranny, as that form of government could and would dictate to us how to live, and would not be a government of a free people.
New York Times op-ed Op-Ed Contributor Wendy Button clearly confirms what I've been saying. Although very politically incorrect, it is clear evidence of the fact that a segment of our population would rather suffer the consequences of being defenseless than accept the responsibility of self-security. Here is her plea<= to have the government protect her from herself and what she's willing to sacrifice to feel protected.
...our leaders should do more to keep us safe from ourselves.
Please take away my Second Amendment right. Do more to help us protect ourselves because what's most likely to wake me in the early hours isn't a man's body slamming at my door but depression, that raven, tapping, rapping, banging for relief.
I have a better chance of surviving if I never have the option of being able to pull the trigger.
OK first off, suicide is not dependent upon a firearm, Japan has a much higher rate of suicide that the US and far fewer guns. When you consider the fact that overdosing on pain meds now claims more lives than auto accidents and far more than gun related deaths of any type taking away her Second Amendment right won't make her safer from herself. It will however make any man who attempts to rape her 10 times more likely to succeed. She used government stats to support her claims, she ignored a bunch of them though. Like the fact that according to the FBI less than 3 in 100 rape attempts are successful if the woman is armed, while 3 in 10 are successful when the woman is unarmed.
The fact is women have historically proven individually and as a group to be willing to sacrifice liberty, and personal responsibility, for security. To women security is more important than liberty. You can see the evidence in the number of women who stay with an abusive relationship, because the security he provides outweighs the freedom from occasional abuse.
The problem with people like Wendy Button is that she assumes everybody believes as she does, she assumes that no rational person would prefer being self reliant than being protected by the government, even from themselves; she believes that nobody should have the liberty to take risks for themselves she doesn't want to take for herself.
I'd be willing to bet Ms. Button doesn't own a gun, so taking away her right to own one would not affect her in any way. The main stream press agrees with her, they routinely don't cover and spike stories where individuals use guns in self defense. Where was the wall to wall coverage of a mom saving her kids shooting intruders breaking into her home. Ms. Button wants to deny mothers an effective means of protecting their children, so that she can feel safe knowing that if she get's depressed she'll have to jump off a bridge instead of shooting herself. She knows she isn't capable of taking care of herself, and being responsible for her own actions, so projects her lack of confidence and fear to everybode else.
Ms. Button, the solution is far simpler, you don't need the government to keep you from owning a gun. If you are afraid on some dark lonely night that the evil call that the raven, tapping, rapping, banging desire of relief from your depression will cause you to pick up your gun and kill yourself, then don't buy a gun. What makes you think because you're an insecure person who doesn't even trust herself that nobody else can be trusted, and that nobody else should have the right to Keep and Bear arms? What evidence do you have that the government will take better care of you than you can yourself. Do all those who live off the government, in government housing, fed by the government with SNAP, WIC, etc. have better lives than those who are self reliant and provide for themselves. You may want the government to save you from yourself, but who's going to save you from the government?
If you allow them to take away your right to Keep and Bear Arms for your own good, what makes you think they won't take away your right to a jury trial for your own good; after all if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, how could we be trusted to determine who should and shouldn't go to jail.
What about your right to privacy; if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, doesn't the government have the right to see all your papers, medical records, and track your every purchase and movement so that they can better protect you from yourself? Who needs the Fourth Amendment, it severely impedes the government's ability to protect us from ourselves.
What about our unspecified rights; if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, doesn't the government have the right limit our activities? Who really needs to play football or volleyball or baseball or race cars or ride horses or ride bicycles, to keep us safe from ourselves does should the government restrict us to only low impact aerobic exercise, and sports that have zero danger. In fact to protect us from ourselves shouldn't the government be even be allowed to require a certain amount of low impact aerobic exercise per week, and limit our television time, and so that we don't get any bad ideas that could lead to self destructive or dangerous behavior; shouldn't the government take away our right to read watch or produce books, movies, songs etc. that could be harmful. You might read a sad story that makes you depressed and then shoot yourself. Having a government that has the power and authority to protect us from ourselves sounds a lot like tyranny.
Obviously New York Times op-ed contributor Wendy Button is using her emotions not logic and reason to call on government to take away her rights for her own good. Clearly she hasn't thought out what a government that for her own good can determine what is and isn't in her best interest, can dictate and monitor her every action. She is clearly neither emotionally nor intellectually mature enough to handle liberty. That's the battle folks, a feminized society that feels security is more valuable than liberty and doesn't think things through. We instituted our government to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to protect us from ourselves. You can't have liberty and be protected from yourself. The call to have a government big enough, strong enough, and powerful enough to protect us from ourselves, is a call for tyranny, as that form of government could and would dictate to us how to live, and would not be a government of a free people.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Revolution has Started
By Tom Rhodes, 1/20/2013
Obama is going to again be frustrated by the Constitution. It’s clear he doesn’t respect or embrace the constitution famously sayin that he’s frustrated at not being " able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, you know, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." Not it seems that he has chosen to ignore the law, and the constitution.
At least in the letter to Licensed Federal Firearm Dealers (FFL holders), he only “encouraging” them to provide background check services for private gun sales and did not make it a requirement. There is a reason why this isn’t a requirement.
The law is clear, gun sales between private individuals must be handled by FFL holders ONLY if the private parties are residents of different states. Residents of the same state may conclude the sale of a firearm without submitting to a background check, having the sale recorded or paying a fee to a FFL holder/licensed gun store. The courts would be flooded and would overthrow making that a requirement because the private transactions between citizens of the same state is not interstate commerce, and is clearly beyond the power of the federal government. Score one for limited government.
Now the law is clear on the ATF or any Federal Government agency having records of gun sales and a database of guns and their owners. The McClure-Volkmer Act states:
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment . . . may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.
What Obama is calling for is clearly illegal and beyond his executive powers.
Before Obama can legally implement many of his executive orders he must get congress to change the law. Even if States have firearm registration, the Federal government is prohibited from having copies of that data – period. He is ignoring both the law of the land and the Constitution.
You know why he’s getting away with what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional? Because he can. Those in congress in positions to thwart his illegal and unconstitutional acts have been removed from leadership positions by the GOP ruling elite. Obviously electing people to office to represent the will of the people is not longer an effective means to change government. What do we do now?
We’ve already answered that question. If Obama can ignore the law, so can We The People. Not only can we, we are. When was the last time you paid taxes on sales you made across state lines? You didn’t, you choose to ignore the law. If Obama succeeds in making it a legal requirement to register “assault weapons” and pay a tax for owning them, guess what, that law will be ignored and millions and millions of people will not comply, any more than we report income that the IRS doesn’t know about.
The next rebellion won’t be armed, it’s already happening, it will simply be the people ignoring the government and finding ways to get more out of the government that they pay to the government. The people will act like GE, and strangle the government by finding legal and illegal ways to starve the government. Because the government no longer honors the rule of law the people no longer have a moral compulsion to honor the governments laws.
Take performance exhausts on vehicles; it is illegal to remove the catalytic converter and install an exhaust system on a vehicle other than for “off road” purposes. Cars, motorcycles, trucks abound with high performance or no exhausts, the people simply ignore the law. So many ignore that law it is impossible to enforce. Imagine trying to enforce that law on the millions and millions of factory built Harley Davidson’s that have had their catalytic converter’s removed and carburetors modified with components designated for “off road” use only.
In Pennsylvania they use mere arrests, not convictions, as a means to deny people concealed carry permits – Why? Because they can’t get convictions from juries for non-violent drug crimes. They can and do clearly prove these crimes, but at least 1 in 12 jurors refuse to convict because they believe the law is bad. Most convictions for drug crimes in Philly happen when a person is bullied into confessing, those smart enough to go to a jury trial are not usually convicted; and as more people there have learned this, fewer and fewer of them plea bargain. This is jury nullification; where the people say government you’ve created laws that we don’t consent, and you govern at our consent, therefore we won’t convict. Half our adult population lives where they have access to a firearm there are somewhere over 100Million gun owners in the USA. Jury nullification for new Obama gun restrictions will be common.
Modern rebellion will not look like 1776, or the War Between the States. It will look more like the third world, where the government is treated with contempt, routinely ignored. But unlike the third world, the government doesn’t and won’t have a monopoly on force. As statists try to capture more and more control in the hands of fewer and fewer people, they will find that they don’t have the resources, nor will of the people to support them. Atlas will shrug, and the people will simply milk the government for what they can and ignore it wherever possible, and nullify it when they can. The feds are rapidly losing their control of the states over pot and it isn’t even a specified right, they certainly aren’t going to succeed in increasing control over the people by instituting what has been a historic precursor to disarming them, registering firearms.
When the government comes asking where the AR-15 I bought in 2012 that they traced down is, the answer will be I sold it for a huge profit in the madness following Sandy Hook, while I could still sell it without reporting the sale to the government. Retroactive laws are illegal, and the government will have to prove otherwise. That will be the refrain of millions and millions of people. Millions of AR-15’s will just disappear from government knowledge as everybody claims to have sold theirs but didn’t keep a record of who they sold it to. Non-compliance will be what the next rebellion looks like: Cheating on taxes to starve the government; refusing to answer all the questions in the Census long form; paying cash and bartering to avoid government tracking and taxes; staying on government programs while you have a cash paying job; the rebellion has started, statist in government are just too dumb to notice.
Obama is going to again be frustrated by the Constitution. It’s clear he doesn’t respect or embrace the constitution famously sayin that he’s frustrated at not being " able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, you know, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." Not it seems that he has chosen to ignore the law, and the constitution.
At least in the letter to Licensed Federal Firearm Dealers (FFL holders), he only “encouraging” them to provide background check services for private gun sales and did not make it a requirement. There is a reason why this isn’t a requirement.
The law is clear, gun sales between private individuals must be handled by FFL holders ONLY if the private parties are residents of different states. Residents of the same state may conclude the sale of a firearm without submitting to a background check, having the sale recorded or paying a fee to a FFL holder/licensed gun store. The courts would be flooded and would overthrow making that a requirement because the private transactions between citizens of the same state is not interstate commerce, and is clearly beyond the power of the federal government. Score one for limited government.
Now the law is clear on the ATF or any Federal Government agency having records of gun sales and a database of guns and their owners. The McClure-Volkmer Act states:
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment . . . may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.
What Obama is calling for is clearly illegal and beyond his executive powers.
Before Obama can legally implement many of his executive orders he must get congress to change the law. Even if States have firearm registration, the Federal government is prohibited from having copies of that data – period. He is ignoring both the law of the land and the Constitution.
You know why he’s getting away with what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional? Because he can. Those in congress in positions to thwart his illegal and unconstitutional acts have been removed from leadership positions by the GOP ruling elite. Obviously electing people to office to represent the will of the people is not longer an effective means to change government. What do we do now?
We’ve already answered that question. If Obama can ignore the law, so can We The People. Not only can we, we are. When was the last time you paid taxes on sales you made across state lines? You didn’t, you choose to ignore the law. If Obama succeeds in making it a legal requirement to register “assault weapons” and pay a tax for owning them, guess what, that law will be ignored and millions and millions of people will not comply, any more than we report income that the IRS doesn’t know about.
The next rebellion won’t be armed, it’s already happening, it will simply be the people ignoring the government and finding ways to get more out of the government that they pay to the government. The people will act like GE, and strangle the government by finding legal and illegal ways to starve the government. Because the government no longer honors the rule of law the people no longer have a moral compulsion to honor the governments laws.
Take performance exhausts on vehicles; it is illegal to remove the catalytic converter and install an exhaust system on a vehicle other than for “off road” purposes. Cars, motorcycles, trucks abound with high performance or no exhausts, the people simply ignore the law. So many ignore that law it is impossible to enforce. Imagine trying to enforce that law on the millions and millions of factory built Harley Davidson’s that have had their catalytic converter’s removed and carburetors modified with components designated for “off road” use only.
In Pennsylvania they use mere arrests, not convictions, as a means to deny people concealed carry permits – Why? Because they can’t get convictions from juries for non-violent drug crimes. They can and do clearly prove these crimes, but at least 1 in 12 jurors refuse to convict because they believe the law is bad. Most convictions for drug crimes in Philly happen when a person is bullied into confessing, those smart enough to go to a jury trial are not usually convicted; and as more people there have learned this, fewer and fewer of them plea bargain. This is jury nullification; where the people say government you’ve created laws that we don’t consent, and you govern at our consent, therefore we won’t convict. Half our adult population lives where they have access to a firearm there are somewhere over 100Million gun owners in the USA. Jury nullification for new Obama gun restrictions will be common.
Modern rebellion will not look like 1776, or the War Between the States. It will look more like the third world, where the government is treated with contempt, routinely ignored. But unlike the third world, the government doesn’t and won’t have a monopoly on force. As statists try to capture more and more control in the hands of fewer and fewer people, they will find that they don’t have the resources, nor will of the people to support them. Atlas will shrug, and the people will simply milk the government for what they can and ignore it wherever possible, and nullify it when they can. The feds are rapidly losing their control of the states over pot and it isn’t even a specified right, they certainly aren’t going to succeed in increasing control over the people by instituting what has been a historic precursor to disarming them, registering firearms.
When the government comes asking where the AR-15 I bought in 2012 that they traced down is, the answer will be I sold it for a huge profit in the madness following Sandy Hook, while I could still sell it without reporting the sale to the government. Retroactive laws are illegal, and the government will have to prove otherwise. That will be the refrain of millions and millions of people. Millions of AR-15’s will just disappear from government knowledge as everybody claims to have sold theirs but didn’t keep a record of who they sold it to. Non-compliance will be what the next rebellion looks like: Cheating on taxes to starve the government; refusing to answer all the questions in the Census long form; paying cash and bartering to avoid government tracking and taxes; staying on government programs while you have a cash paying job; the rebellion has started, statist in government are just too dumb to notice.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Obama Says We are a Collectivist Nation
By Tom Rhodes, 1/19/2013
During Obama’s speech outlining his 23 executive orders to advance the governments incremental ban firearms he said, “we are all responsible for each other.” That is pure Collectivist tripe, this one phrase exposes his mindset, and that mindset doesn’t include individual liberty and freedom as core beliefs. The USA is not a collectivist nation. In the USA I am not by brother’s keeper. Our Declaration of Independence made this quite clear. We are free to pursue happiness, there is no guarantee that we will achieve it, nor obligation placed on others to provide it.
Because we are a free nation, I am free to charitably help anyone I want but there is no moral rational to force me to be charitable if I choose to be a selfish bastard. Being a selfish bastard may be morally wrong, but that doesn’t justify using force to take the property of a person who is selfish. That means if my neighbor has a string of bad luck he is not my responsibility. I am free to determine what if any part of my property I choose to donate to him to help him out. I’m free to put whatever conditions on my charity I choose, as in “I’ll pay your electric bill this month, but if you don’t at least try to find a job, and clean up your yard I’ll not help you again.”
If a woman decides to have children without a husband to help her raise and provide for those children, neither she nor her children are my responsibility.
Even though a corporation is doing what the government encouraged, if it fails, sustaining that corporation is not my responsibility. The loss like the profits should be the shareholders, not mine.
Contrary to the “progressive” crap you believe this country’s Founding Fathers did not guarantee success or happiness; they guaranteed the right to pursue it. They didn’t even guarantee the ability to pursuit it, only that the government doesn’t have the right to interfere with your pursuit of happiness. The sole responsibility of the government (our country) is to protect all individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equally under the law.
I am responsible to my God, my country, my family, and myself, and to nobody else. My God asks me to be generous to widows orphans and those who’ve fallen on bad times, he did not ask the government to take my money and do those things if I choose not to. My country was instituted at the consent of the governed and we choose to limit it severely, I am not responsible for its actions outside of its very limited scope. I am responsible to provide for, and protect my family. I don’t expect my neighbor to give me food, shelter, educate my kids, or fix my car without me paying for his goods and services. Nobody else is responsible for me, my actions, my well being, or my happiness; if I fail in that responsibility then I not my neighbor should suffer the consequences. Yes there is risk I will fail, but I prefer dangerous liberty over the safety of collectivist tyranny.
During Obama’s speech outlining his 23 executive orders to advance the governments incremental ban firearms he said, “we are all responsible for each other.” That is pure Collectivist tripe, this one phrase exposes his mindset, and that mindset doesn’t include individual liberty and freedom as core beliefs. The USA is not a collectivist nation. In the USA I am not by brother’s keeper. Our Declaration of Independence made this quite clear. We are free to pursue happiness, there is no guarantee that we will achieve it, nor obligation placed on others to provide it.
Because we are a free nation, I am free to charitably help anyone I want but there is no moral rational to force me to be charitable if I choose to be a selfish bastard. Being a selfish bastard may be morally wrong, but that doesn’t justify using force to take the property of a person who is selfish. That means if my neighbor has a string of bad luck he is not my responsibility. I am free to determine what if any part of my property I choose to donate to him to help him out. I’m free to put whatever conditions on my charity I choose, as in “I’ll pay your electric bill this month, but if you don’t at least try to find a job, and clean up your yard I’ll not help you again.”
If a woman decides to have children without a husband to help her raise and provide for those children, neither she nor her children are my responsibility.
Even though a corporation is doing what the government encouraged, if it fails, sustaining that corporation is not my responsibility. The loss like the profits should be the shareholders, not mine.
Contrary to the “progressive” crap you believe this country’s Founding Fathers did not guarantee success or happiness; they guaranteed the right to pursue it. They didn’t even guarantee the ability to pursuit it, only that the government doesn’t have the right to interfere with your pursuit of happiness. The sole responsibility of the government (our country) is to protect all individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equally under the law.
I am responsible to my God, my country, my family, and myself, and to nobody else. My God asks me to be generous to widows orphans and those who’ve fallen on bad times, he did not ask the government to take my money and do those things if I choose not to. My country was instituted at the consent of the governed and we choose to limit it severely, I am not responsible for its actions outside of its very limited scope. I am responsible to provide for, and protect my family. I don’t expect my neighbor to give me food, shelter, educate my kids, or fix my car without me paying for his goods and services. Nobody else is responsible for me, my actions, my well being, or my happiness; if I fail in that responsibility then I not my neighbor should suffer the consequences. Yes there is risk I will fail, but I prefer dangerous liberty over the safety of collectivist tyranny.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Reasons You Should Quit the GOP and Join the LP
By Tom Rhodes, 1/16/2012
Let's face it, the Republican Party does not actually support or believe in conservative ideas. So here are some reasons why you the Republican Conservatives should quit the GOP and join the LP.
1) The GOP establishment is continuously trying to abandon conservatism, and is at war with liberty. When Republicans run for office, they lie about being conservative and then move to the left. Consider GOP darling and liar Marco Rubio, while running for office he opposed amnesty for illegals, now he wants to make them citizens. It is clear that conservatives cannot trust Republicans in Congress to just do the right thing. If it weren't for grass roots organizations like the NRA and GOA you could be confident that the Republicans would cave to the Democrats on gun control, etc. They cannot be expected to actually do the jobs they were sent to Congress to do the way they claimed they would do while running for office.
2) The GOP establishment prefers liberals not conservatives, ALWAYS! The GOP leaders consistently back the liberal Republican over the Conservative or Libertarian Republican. It backed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz, Bob Bennett over Mike Lee, Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. Our two top "leaders" in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, both endorsed now Democrat Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. The best and brightest of the GOP in the Senate are universally opposed by the GOP establishment. The message this sends to conservatives is, "You guys scare the crap out of us, and we'd rather back future Democrats like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter than real conservatives."
3) The GOP keeps staying with the same failed people over and over again. Why are John Boehner and Mitch McConnell still in charge in Congress. What results has their "leadership" provided? McConnell has been outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Harry Reid at every turn. RNC chair Reince Priebus can raise money ok, but failed as RNC leader. The 2012 Senate sucked, didn't get anything done, and caved on almost everything, yet the same people were chosen again for leadership.
4) The ruling elite of the GOP establishment don't produce results. When the GOP was in power, they implemented Medicare Part D and wanted comprehensive immigration reform, instituted no child left behind, and spent like drunken sailors. The GOP establishment trashed any real conservatives or libertarians and gave the country John McCain or Mitt Romney because they were "electable" while both are liberals who ran from social issues, and promote big government at every turn. When the GOP establishment gets its way, they lose. The GOP ruling elite offer defeat, the LP may not win a lot of elections, but then at least they are principled. The GOP establishment offers you not only losing elections by acting liberal, but losing your respect and trust for compromising and lying about being "conservative."
5) The want to lose. Well they'd rather a liberal win over a real conservative. They run nasty campaigns against conservatives but then play nice and act like wussies when fighting democrats. Where ware Romney's attacks against Obama the way he attacked his GOP opponents. Playing nice with Democrats isn't doing the conservative cause any good. Obama is talking about overruling Congress with executive orders and minting trillion dollar platinum coins. Listening to the GOP establishment, they are acting like all is well and it's just business as usual in Washington. The GOP establishment is content to sit on the sidelines and watch Obama usurp their power and authority. The GOP controls all spending, they can say no to any spending increases, all spending and tax laws must start in the HOUSE. They have no guts to actually stand for what they believe, and have proven it.
6) The GOP doesn't represent the your values as much as the Libertarian Party does. It is clear that conservative values and beliefs have been abandoned by GOP establishment officials. You simply can't trust establishment Republicans the way liberals can trust Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. You can always trust Pelosi and Reid to turn left if they have the chance. You can't say that of Jeb Bush, John Boehner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Joe Scarborough, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt, Reince Priebus, Karl Rove, David Brooks, Megan McCain, Bob Dole, Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney. They may be nice guys but they clearly don't support a conservative movement, you can't trust them to make a conservative choice or stand on conservative principles. Their agenda is clearly statist, not conservative. You may not agree 100% with Libertarians, but you can certainly trust them to do as they say far more than your current establishment.
The GOP establishment is for the government, not you the average Republican. They take you for granted, so why not go where you'd be appreciated, and accepted. The LP is not monolithic pot smoking anarchists, and no, the LP may not match your values perfectly, but the GOP lies to you saying they represent your values while doing the opposite. The values and objectives of the Libertarian Party are far closer to your own than the establishment Republican Party. Supporting the Republicans certainly hasn't proved effective in promoting your values. Make the switch and make a difference. Join the LP.
Do you want to know what the LP really stands for? Here are our objectives, they are a lot closer to your beliefs than anything the GOP establishment has or is offering.
Create an environment for Free markets to flourish
Promote Social Freedoms
End the wars abroad, bring our troops home
End the Drug war on drugs, drugs are a health issue, not a criminal issue
End Crony Capitalism; don't play favorites in the market
Repeal all laws that infringe on our rights, privacy, property
Audit and or End the Federal Reserve
Follow the Constitution
Find out more by reading our platform at http://www.lpf.org/the-lpfs-platform.
Let's face it, the Republican Party does not actually support or believe in conservative ideas. So here are some reasons why you the Republican Conservatives should quit the GOP and join the LP.
1) The GOP establishment is continuously trying to abandon conservatism, and is at war with liberty. When Republicans run for office, they lie about being conservative and then move to the left. Consider GOP darling and liar Marco Rubio, while running for office he opposed amnesty for illegals, now he wants to make them citizens. It is clear that conservatives cannot trust Republicans in Congress to just do the right thing. If it weren't for grass roots organizations like the NRA and GOA you could be confident that the Republicans would cave to the Democrats on gun control, etc. They cannot be expected to actually do the jobs they were sent to Congress to do the way they claimed they would do while running for office.
2) The GOP establishment prefers liberals not conservatives, ALWAYS! The GOP leaders consistently back the liberal Republican over the Conservative or Libertarian Republican. It backed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz, Bob Bennett over Mike Lee, Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. Our two top "leaders" in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, both endorsed now Democrat Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. The best and brightest of the GOP in the Senate are universally opposed by the GOP establishment. The message this sends to conservatives is, "You guys scare the crap out of us, and we'd rather back future Democrats like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter than real conservatives."
3) The GOP keeps staying with the same failed people over and over again. Why are John Boehner and Mitch McConnell still in charge in Congress. What results has their "leadership" provided? McConnell has been outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Harry Reid at every turn. RNC chair Reince Priebus can raise money ok, but failed as RNC leader. The 2012 Senate sucked, didn't get anything done, and caved on almost everything, yet the same people were chosen again for leadership.
4) The ruling elite of the GOP establishment don't produce results. When the GOP was in power, they implemented Medicare Part D and wanted comprehensive immigration reform, instituted no child left behind, and spent like drunken sailors. The GOP establishment trashed any real conservatives or libertarians and gave the country John McCain or Mitt Romney because they were "electable" while both are liberals who ran from social issues, and promote big government at every turn. When the GOP establishment gets its way, they lose. The GOP ruling elite offer defeat, the LP may not win a lot of elections, but then at least they are principled. The GOP establishment offers you not only losing elections by acting liberal, but losing your respect and trust for compromising and lying about being "conservative."
5) The want to lose. Well they'd rather a liberal win over a real conservative. They run nasty campaigns against conservatives but then play nice and act like wussies when fighting democrats. Where ware Romney's attacks against Obama the way he attacked his GOP opponents. Playing nice with Democrats isn't doing the conservative cause any good. Obama is talking about overruling Congress with executive orders and minting trillion dollar platinum coins. Listening to the GOP establishment, they are acting like all is well and it's just business as usual in Washington. The GOP establishment is content to sit on the sidelines and watch Obama usurp their power and authority. The GOP controls all spending, they can say no to any spending increases, all spending and tax laws must start in the HOUSE. They have no guts to actually stand for what they believe, and have proven it.
6) The GOP doesn't represent the your values as much as the Libertarian Party does. It is clear that conservative values and beliefs have been abandoned by GOP establishment officials. You simply can't trust establishment Republicans the way liberals can trust Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. You can always trust Pelosi and Reid to turn left if they have the chance. You can't say that of Jeb Bush, John Boehner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Joe Scarborough, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Frum, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt, Reince Priebus, Karl Rove, David Brooks, Megan McCain, Bob Dole, Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney. They may be nice guys but they clearly don't support a conservative movement, you can't trust them to make a conservative choice or stand on conservative principles. Their agenda is clearly statist, not conservative. You may not agree 100% with Libertarians, but you can certainly trust them to do as they say far more than your current establishment.
The GOP establishment is for the government, not you the average Republican. They take you for granted, so why not go where you'd be appreciated, and accepted. The LP is not monolithic pot smoking anarchists, and no, the LP may not match your values perfectly, but the GOP lies to you saying they represent your values while doing the opposite. The values and objectives of the Libertarian Party are far closer to your own than the establishment Republican Party. Supporting the Republicans certainly hasn't proved effective in promoting your values. Make the switch and make a difference. Join the LP.
Do you want to know what the LP really stands for? Here are our objectives, they are a lot closer to your beliefs than anything the GOP establishment has or is offering.
Find out more by reading our platform at http://www.lpf.org/the-lpfs-platform.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Pravda and Libertarians Agree
By Tom Rhodes, 1/14/2013
Even arguably the most socialist periodical in the world, Pravda, recognizes our government's actions after Sandy Hook are an opportunistic fraud. From Pravda, December 28, 2012, an article by Stanislav Mishin and is titled "Americans Never Give up Your Guns," sums up exactly what statists in the USA are doing.
Statists on the left in the USA's position is that that since some people are mentally off balance and we don't know where all of them are, and we can't infringe upon their rights, so we should disarm everyone, and ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Intellectually, statistically, morally, and constitutionally the anti-gun statists' position is without merit. When libertarians and Pravda agree you know the government is up to no good.
Even arguably the most socialist periodical in the world, Pravda, recognizes our government's actions after Sandy Hook are an opportunistic fraud. From Pravda, December 28, 2012, an article by Stanislav Mishin and is titled "Americans Never Give up Your Guns," sums up exactly what statists in the USA are doing.
"Government will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime ...No, it is about power and a total power over the people. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns ... they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question."
Statists on the left in the USA's position is that that since some people are mentally off balance and we don't know where all of them are, and we can't infringe upon their rights, so we should disarm everyone, and ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Intellectually, statistically, morally, and constitutionally the anti-gun statists' position is without merit. When libertarians and Pravda agree you know the government is up to no good.
Pravda and Libertarians Agree
By Tom Rhodes, 1/14/2013
Even arguably the most socialist periodical in the world, Pravda, recognizes our government's actions after Sandy Hook are an opportunistic fraud. From Pravda, December 28, 2012, an article by Stanislav Mishin and is titled "Americans Never Give up Your Guns," sums up exactly what statists in the USA are doing.
Statists on the left in the USA's position is that that since some people are mentally off balance and we don't know where all of them are, and we can't infringe upon their rights, so we should disarm everyone, and ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Intellectually, statistically, morally, and constitutionally the anti-gun statists' position is without merit. When libertarians and Pravda agree you know the government is up to no good.
Even arguably the most socialist periodical in the world, Pravda, recognizes our government's actions after Sandy Hook are an opportunistic fraud. From Pravda, December 28, 2012, an article by Stanislav Mishin and is titled "Americans Never Give up Your Guns," sums up exactly what statists in the USA are doing.
"Government will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime ...No, it is about power and a total power over the people. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns ... they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question."
Statists on the left in the USA's position is that that since some people are mentally off balance and we don't know where all of them are, and we can't infringe upon their rights, so we should disarm everyone, and ignore the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Intellectually, statistically, morally, and constitutionally the anti-gun statists' position is without merit. When libertarians and Pravda agree you know the government is up to no good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
