Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

By Tom Rhodes, 7/23/2014

Not much of a headline, but the protection of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is the why and purpose of establishing this great nation. Every group be it a country, a company, a club, a committee, a team, a church, have a purpose. If they didn’t then the group wouldn’t exist. That purpose may be as noble as the purpose the US exists, which is to protect the Live, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, of all individuals equally. Or the purpose may be as ignoble as selling drugs and killing rival gangs. Or as simple as having a good time sharing a common interest like quilting club, or book club, or beer club.

The USA is unique in it was instituted not to control and rule over the people, but specifically to protect the people’s unalienable natural rights. First of these is the right to life. Don’t protect that right and the rest is inconsequential. Many in the LP have abandoned the idea that everybody’s life deserves protection. They have adopted the idea that some people’s lives are of such little value that they may be killed without reason and such murder should go unpunished.

Abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human who doesn’t have the ability to protect themselves. Lie to yourself all you want but you cannot scientifically say that a fetus is not a unique human being. The clearly established scientific fact is that from the earliest stages of development, each of us is a distinct, living, and whole human being. Every embryology textbook out there says that each of us began as a single-celled zygote (see references below for some examples) find me an embryology text that doesn’t establish new life of mammals begins at conception. It is true that a new life at the point of conception has yet to mature, but the kind of thing that new life is, is clear. This is settled science.



All that remains isn’t a question of if an embryo or fetus is a live human being, but the philosophical debate on how humans in their earliest stages of development should be valued. Don’t confuse the question of a person’s value with empirical fact they exist.

Most pro-abortion people be they liberal, libertarian, conservative, or authoritarian are militant about their views. They fight to have opposing views silenced. The issue is not the value they place on the views of dissenters, nor the view pro-life people have on the views of the pro-abortion crowd. The issue is and has been and is the elephant in the room, the value we place on life itself.

The pro-abortion crowd argues that that each and every human being does not have an equal right to life. The objective truth is abortion is the termination of a human life. No matter how they try to change abortion to being a choice or personal preference, abortion is a value decision that says the terminated human life has no value. Abortion cannot be a personal preference. Choosing chocolate or vanilla is a preference, choosing to terminate what is scientifically a distinct human being is not.

Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to control her own body, is a classic logical fallacy. That position assumes there is only one body involved, that of the woman. Arguing that nobody knows when life begins is the same type of logical fallacy: it assumes contrary to what every embryology text says, that life begins at birth. That women will get illegal unsafe abortions if they weren’t legal, is called "arguing the consequence." Using that logic we should make resisting rape illegal to make it safer for rapists. The issue isn’t safety, it’s the status and value of the human being who is terminated. If the argument for abortion doesn’t apply to toddlers or the old and infirm, then it’s a bad argument. These arguments are based on irrationally assuming the falsehod that the unborn aren’t humans. The objective truth is they simply point out that some people have value and others don't. Those that don't have value don’t have rights based on some arbitrary standard, in this case age, but it could just as easily be race or sex.

From conception, even as a single cell, the new human life begins at conception the new persons first specific behavior of self defense. The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed. Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.
LINK

To be pro-abortion you must abandon the philosophy that all people have the same natural rights. To be pro-abortion you must take the position that only those people of some arbitrary stage of development, or have some arbitrary ability, are of value, and those who don’t meet that arbitrary standard don’t have rights. You must abandon the idea that “All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Humans differ immeasurably with respect to and degrees of development, capacities, accomplishments, and desires, they are nevertheless equal because they share a common human nature. How can there be any objective human rights that apply to anyone, if we deny that?

The USA is unique, it was established to protect the rights of the people, specifically the right to life. You cannot be a rational libertarian and support abortion. You cannot rationally believe that there are unalienable rights and support abortion. If you support legalized abortion, you have made a value judgment on people, you are clearly saying that some people are of value and deserve to have their life protected and others are not. If you support abortion as a right, you simply say that a mature woman’s life is of more value than a less developed person’s life, and by virtue of her life having superior value, she can choose to terminate the life another person of less value without penalty.

If you’re pro-abortion, the chances you’re an elitist who places the value of some people over others; to the point that some people’s lives have more value than others. The numbers don’t lie, look at who gets aborted, blacks, poor, minorities, are terminated in vastly disproportionate numbers. Rationally you would have to conclude that abortion has been an effective tool of elitists to decrease the population of “undesirables.”

Rhetoric to confuse the question of a person’s value with the empirical fact they exist, doesn’t change the fact. Scientifically there is no argument, conception is the point at which a new unique human life is created. Rationalize and equivocate all you want, being pro-abortion is a value judgment. If you are pro-abortion you simply believe humans who don’t meet some arbitrary standard don’t have the right to life, much less the right to vote, speech, religion, liberty, property, or even to pursue happiness. If you’re a pro-abortion libertarian, you should be ashamed.



References:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Jeff Foxworthy - You Might Be a Liberal If ...


No Jeff Foxworthy didn't write/say these descriptions of liberals, but . . . in homage to his virtual trademark of "you might be a XXXXXXX if YYYYYYYYY" here is how I believe he would describe liberals.



You might be a liberal if you forcibly take money you don't deserve from the people who earned it and call THEM greedy for not wanting to give you even more.

You might be a liberal if you say that asking for voter ID is racist while claiming that black Americans are too uniquely stupid and lazy to get an ID.

You might be a liberal if say that the government should confiscate guns from NRA members and kill them if they resist and then claim that you have no idea why they think that they need guns to defend themselves.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Moral Rot = Less Liberty

By Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2014

The bottom line is that America has lost its moral compass. Deficits, runaway national debt, unbridled federal spending are the symptoms of Americas Moral Decay. There is no moral backbone in America. The citizenry now openly demands congress forcibly use some Americans to serve the purposes of others. As a nation, we are suffering from a deep seated moral rot, that is most evidenced by the end of the Rule of Law.

We now routinely substitute legally allowable for morally right. Of course it is legal to stone women for adultery is some nations today, that does not make it morally right. Walter Williams has been talking about this for years. He poses this question: “Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another?” Note he doesn’t ask if it’s legal, but rather asks if its moral.

Let’s think about it using a Professor Williams example: “Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person's money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman.” His question is by forcing another person to pay for a charity he cares about has he a crime?

If you honestly answer yes, and you hopefully believe that taking the property of another is theft, even if they plan on giving it to somebody needy. Now the more difficult part, as Dr. Williams proposes; “Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person's money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person's $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person's $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person's $200?” He clearly illustrates how making an action legal, does not morally justify that action.

There is a very old and very famous quote that says: “the more corrupt a state the more numerous its laws.” The USA is a representative republic, those elected to the represent the people reflect the people. It is obvious that there is moral rot in our elected leaders. The higher up the more obvious the rot. The current president has no regard for the rule of law, separation of powers, or telling the truth. In fact a large number of people openly say it’s OK to for the president to lie in order to get congress to do what he wants. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

The GOP in 2010 elected a lot of representatives based on support of the TEA Party. Overwhelmingly those newly elected representatives voted for the statist positions against their promises to their constituents and those who supported them as soon as they got power. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Today you don’t dare criticize the opinions of a college co-ed porn star, that automatically makes you a misogynist woman hater. Criticize the character of a liar who happens to be black and your racist. Expose the character of any politician, especially liberal, and your attacked. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Our schools now teach innocent pre-pubescent children about gay sex, anal sex, alternative life styles, and how to put condoms on bananas while parents dress up their little girls like trollops. As a society we no longer protect, much less value the innocence of children. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Unless we elect people of character, regardless of their race, sex, political party, etc. there is no hope for the USA ever being the land of liberty it once was. Until and unless the people of the country are willing to live with the consequences of their own life decisions, instead of voting for the use of force to make others pay for their bad life choices, the USA ever being the land of liberty it once was.

History is pretty clear, repeatedly civilizations have become prosperous, then decadent, then fallen back to barbarism. Never in history has any civilization that has become decadent survived. What do you call a society that decries those who would dare criticize a porn star, and calls “disgusting” and silences a girl who demonstrates wholesome self-sufficiency, as the past couple weeks have shown our society did?

The moral compass of America is screwed up. Historically societies that become decadent fall, Rome being a primary example. The USA is not exempt from cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations. We are seeing as moral rot in the USA increases liberty, even freedom of speech, decreases. The Bible has an entire book dedicated to the privation and suffering that occurs when the people as a whole morally decay – Judges. Follow the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, and people prosper and have liberty, abandon those basic instructions, and suffer and are enslaved, repeat. Moral Rot = Less Liberty. History and current events are proving our forefathers right, the Constitution is wholly inadequate for an immoral people.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Hobby Lobby vs. Critical Thinking

By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2014

Liberals are all upset that Hobby Lobby won in the Supreme Court. I firmly believe that most of the left today have their hearts in the right place, but let their emotions override their ability to think. Their big angsts seem to be they don’t want to let their bosses into their bedroom and that somehow this decision is unjust.

The only way you can accept their argument that declining to pay for something is the same as "blocking access" to it, and the only way you can accept that argument is to say that people have a right to free birth control. If you believe that then allowing some employers to violate that right because of their religious beliefs should be considered unjust. The problem is that there is no such right as a right to free birth control. Worse yet the exact wording and nature of the ACA is clearly sexist.

There is no provision to pay for men’s birth control, and no provision to force insurance to cover vasectomy surgery for men, while birth control and tubal ligation for women must be covered. There is no rational way to justify a right to forcing others to pay for women’s birth control, but not to pay for men’s. Any rationalization is simply sexist, supporting the feminine imperative.

The entire case is predicated on two conflicting feminist positions. The idea that women can force their boss to pay for their birth control and that their boss has no right to stick his nose in their bedroom. The reality is when somebody pays for something they have a right to some control of what they are paying for. Saying that Hobby Lobby had no right to control what health care services and products it purchases for its employees is the same as saying that government has no say in what medical procedures it will pay for under Medicare or the ACA. Those paying have the right to choose what they purchase.

This is a prime example of liberal lack of critical thinking. There is no up swell and call by men to force insurance companies to pay for their prophylactics and vasectomies. The reason is clear, men know their sex life is nobody else’s business, and men know if they ask somebody else to pay for it, that somebody else will have a say in it. As soon as liberals decided that paying for women’s birth control must be covered by insurance they invited those who pay for that insurance into their bedroom. Be it your employer or the government, those who pay for something have a say in what they pay for, including birth control. You want the government and your boss out of your bedroom, quit asking them to pay for your bedroom activities.

You have the right to do whatever you want with whomever is willing to join you in that activity in your own bedroom. You don’t have the right to force others to subsidize your sex life. If you are going to ask others to pay for your bedroom activities, then they have a say in those bedroom activities.

What the supreme court said in the Hobby Lobby case was, a woman’s boss has no business in her sex life, so she can’t make him pay for it if he doesn’t want to. The idiocy of the SCOTUS decision was they based it on freedom of religion, instead of basing the decision on the fact that people have not granted the government the power to dictate that women’s sex lives must be subsidized by others.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Dept. of Education – Success Story

By Tom Rhodes, 6/25/2014

For years I’ve be lamenting and documenting the historic fact that as we increase central control of education actual student performance and observable student knowledge has dramatically decreased as evidence of the failure of the Dept. of Education. We’ve spent gazillions of dollars for not only no improvement but statistically less educated students, who can’t critically think and don’t understand even the basics of history, science, etc. I was wrong, the Dept. of Education and centralized government control of education is a success. It produced exactly the results the ruling elite wanted.

We now have a nation of individuals who are easy prey to government hucksters and quacks. Americans now are easy prey for big business charlatans of all stripes. The education establishment has succeeded in dumbing down the nation. In a similar observation Dr. Walter Williams notes that historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote in "The Disuniting of America": "History is to the nation ... as memory is to the individual. As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of its past will be disabled in dealing with its present and its future."

The idea that the expression of some ideas that are not politically correct should be labeled as “hate speech” and outlawed, or the actual purpose of all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights us unknown to most high school graduates. If we knew and understood the why and reasoning behind the Bill of Rights, and Declaration of independence, and the values that create the USA then special interest groups and politicians couldn't run roughshod over our liberties.

Right now if a college or university doesn’t assume people are guilty and deny them the right to defend themselves of certain crimes, the government is actually withholding funding. Think about that, government run universities are required to do away with the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution in order to receive government funding. Imagine being charged with a crime, not allowed to cross examine witnesses, not allowed to have a lawyer, and not allowed to defend yourself, not allowed to face and question your accuser, and judged in closed court with secret proceedings. That is what Eric Holder and the Obama Justice department are demanding of universities. It is allowed because people don’t know our basic rights, much less the reason behind them. If you don't know what I'm talking about google the latest George Will articles.

Of course a full third of people surveyed when asked the origin of the statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" responded by saying it's from our Bill of Rights. If you don’t know it’s origins, you too are part of the problem.

The Dept. of Education has been successful. I just didn’t understand it’s goals. They were not to produce a more educated citizenry, but produce technically adept workers who have no understanding of how to think, of our history, or of the values that this country was founded. Making them easily manipulated and controlled. Obviously the system as designed does work.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Mike Adam's Free Speech College Entrance Exam

Mike Adams is a college professor who recently won a first amendment case aganst the University of North Carolina. They denied him tenure because he was not liberal and chose to exercise his freedom of speech. In hopes of preventing other such free speech problems from infecting college campuses he's offered the follwoing solution.



College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.

We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:

1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).

2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.

3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.

4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.

5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.

6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.

7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.

8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.

9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.

10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.

The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:

1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.

2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.

3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.

After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.

In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.



The above was stolen from a Prof. Mike Adams article. I hope he doesn't get too mad, but it needs to be repeated everywhere it can be.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Caught Again, Cooking the Science Books

By Tom Rhodes, 6/23/2014

What is plainly obvious is that global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. We continue to see lies, fraud, and fictitious data to support the idea that the globe is warming because of man’s undue influence on the climate. Soon we will see the foundation of AGW theory to fabricated and fraudulent.

This is the truth, before government statists got ahold of the data.



The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

What we have now is yet another example condemning stastists. Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science provides this example shows how shamelessly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has manipulated the graph of US surface temperature records, which has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.

This is yet more proof that skeptics of global warming (aka deniers) have been consistently correct.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Moore's law is going to explode

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

Looks like Moore’s law is going to get blown apart soon. The idea that due to miniaturization and faster transistors that computing speed will double every 18 months has held true for a while. New discovery that will allow to not only measure the polarity but also the spin of electrons in electronics will move us from a binary systems to quadratic systems using both spin and polarity. So instead of every position on a bus or in storage representing either + or – you’ll have each position resulting one of 4 representations, +S +D –S or –D. that will be the initial improvement. So instead of a 64bit processor being able to handle 4000 combinations per cycle, it will be able to handle 16MILLION combinations per cycle. Interesting note that in 64bit storage a 16Million color image, will require only 1 position per pixel to describe it’s color, reducing the size of a 16Million color image by a factor of 4000. That means an image that used to take 2 megabytes of data would require a small fraction of that for storage.

And . . . . when instead of just measuring spin in terms of left and right but in degrees of left or right (degree of polymerization) true 8, 16 and even 32 character storage positions instead of binary will be possible. Computing will EXPLODE faster than the 80’s. The Heusler compound is going to change computing. Based on using Co2MnSi this is the breakthrough that physicists and chemists around the world have long anticipated, and it will play a pivotal role in information technology.

Read About It Here

Fraud Legal, Rule of Law Dead.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

For centuries fraud has been illegal. The fundamental English Common law pretty much dictated that if you sell somebody something, and then deliver something other than what you said you sold, you are guilty of fraud. If I tell you I’ll sell you a 5 lb sack of potatoes for $3 dollars, and you then take the clearly labeled 5 pound sack of potatoes and later find out it had 5 lbs of rocks you have a clear case of fraud, and could win compensation for the fraud in court. Simple enough principle and everybody agrees advertising and selling potatoes and delivering rocks is fraudulent and illegal and actionable.

Unless of court you’re a bank. The rule of law no longer applies to banks. It is now legal for banks to falsely represent their products to consumers. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) won dismissal of a suit over $450 million in residential mortgage-backed securities, with a New York judge saying that the firms that bought the bonds should have done more research beforehand.

State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos dismissed the claims against Goldman Sachs today, saying the investors only reviewed data presented in offering documents for the securities and never asked to review files for the underlying loans.

“The true nature of the risk being assumed could, admittedly, have been ascertained from reviewing these loan files and plaintiffs never asked for them,” Ramos wrote.


In no uncertain terms judges have ruled that it is perfectly legal to present someone with a fraudulent document claiming to be selling them a pig in the poke, if you don’t actually look in the crate to see that there is a dead cat, and not a live pig in there, it's your fault.

Singlehandedly Judge Ramos has destroyed the loan security market. You are now responsible for checking every single loan that Is part of a mortgage security to ascertain the risk. The bank offering the security is allowed to legally present you with a fraudulent document that doesn’t reflect the actual risks of the loans making up such securities.

Imagine if food companies could legally tell you that the ground beef you were buying was USDA certified and inspected, and sell you rotten mutton instead. If you didn’t check the actual inspection certificate for that lot and compare it to USDA documents, you couldn’t sue for fraud.

Imagine ordering a computer from Amazon online, you purchase a unit advertised to have a Pentium i7 processor and 8GB of ram, and a 2TB hard drive, when you open the box you get an 4.77Mhz XT with an 8088 processor, a single floppy and 256K of ram. Then you find out you have no legal recourse, can’t return it, and can’t sue you didn’t verify that the components in the box where what was promised. That’s the new standard for Banking.

If you have an IRA, or retirement fund that has any money in financial securities, you can be legally fleeced because the banks have no legal requirement to be honest in their holdings, and if you or your broker doesn’t verify the validity of all the details in any prospectus provided independently, you have no recourse.

Game over people, banks are exempt from the law, just like congress. We no longer live in a nation of laws, but an oligarchy ruled by money changers and political hacks. Now that you cannot get justice from the government, the result will be bad. Real bad. To have justice you will be forced to seek it yourself. Just as if you purchase an ounce of pot and get an ounce of oregano, you can’t go to police. Now if you get a bad prospectus and the bank takes your life savings, you can’t go to the FCC or police. So like drug dealers and users, if ripped off you have two choices, accept being ripped off and write off your loses or seek justice on your own. Drug dealers often die violently because they ripped somebody off. Bankers fraudulently take too many people’s money and the courts and government don’t let them get away with it, and they too might be treated like a drug dealer selling oregano as pot. When enough people lose their life savings and their homes because bankers are legally allowed to present fraudulent documents, and those people have no recourse, you will see violent repercussions. Justice in the USA is looking more and more like the third world; justice depends on who you know and your political status not the rule of law.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Ownership

By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2014

Ownership - A fundamental question. How you view and define ownership is THE fundamental component of your world view. The fundamental and accepted concept of ownership is generally accepted as the legal relation between a person (individual, group, corporation, or government) and an object. The object may be corporeal, such as furniture, or completely the creature of law, such as a patent, copyright, or annuity; it may be movable, such as an animal, or immovable, such as land. Because the objects of property and the protected relations are different in every culture and vary according to law, custom, and economic system and the relative social status of those who enjoy its privileges, it is difficult to find a least common denominator of "ownership." Ownership of property probably means at a minimum that one's government or society will help to exclude others from the use or enjoyment of one's possession without one's consent, which may be withheld except at a price.

You don’t really accept that. You believe that at some point societies “needs” outweigh other people’s right to own something. You believe that the state owns the people. Your vote and actions declare that the state owns all individuals, and that they don’t own themselves.

We don’t treat living things we own the same as inanimate objects. In a modern western civilization it is generally accepted that if own something living, like a dog or a horse or a cat, you have a moral and often legal obligation to be responsible for its basic health and wellbeing. Owning a living thing, like a dog, doesn’t give you the right to abuse it. Not like owning a car, if you own a car you are free to use it in a demolition derby if you choose, you’re free to crush it, hit it with a hammer, never change its oil, etc. It’s yours, you own it, so you can do what you want with it so long as you don’t use it in a way that interferes with other peoples natural rights. Not all societies think that way, that is one of the differences between savage and civilized societies. In a savage society, ownership conveys no responsibility, you can crush it, burn it, abuse it, or protect and cherish it, owning a living thing is no different than owning a rock, you use it any way you want, be it an animal or a car or even a person.

The drug war is based on the idea that the state owns its citizens. Just like you as a dog owner has the right to determine what your dog ingests, the state as owner of its citizens it has the right to determine what substances you can ingest, from recreational drugs to your very food. Some courts in the USA have ruled that you have no right to choose what food you eat (try to buy raw milk). More than what you are allowed to put in your body, your very essence is determined by the state. You as the owner of a dog have the right to name it, the state too claims the right to name property of what it owns. You didn’t get to pick your name, don’t think that your parents did either. You can’t even change your own name, oh you think you can go to the courts and “legally” change your name but that’s a fa├žade. The state named you. When you are born, you can’t leave the hospital without your state assigned name. You can’t go to school without your state assigned name. You can’t seek the services of a doctor without your state assigned name. You can’t even purchase real property, or ask a bank to hold your money without your state assigned name. In fact the state is doing everything it can to make it so you can’t even travel without identifying yourself with your state assigned name. You can’t get on an airplane without your state assigned name. You can’t drive a car without your state assigned name. They want to make it so you can’t travel by bus or train without providing your state assigned name. Your Social Security Number.

The state owns you, it even named its property so it can track its property. You are its property. The state claims first right to your labor, and graciously allows you to keep part of your labor. The entire health care and other “entitlement” debates exist because we are a civilized society, and expect the owners of living things to accept civilized responsibilities. Just as the owner of a dog is expected to feed it, and not abuse it, the state is expected to feed its citizens and not abuse them. Savage states, don’t feed their citizens, and routinely abuse them. The determination is all in how the state views ownership, but today, all societies work on the belief that the state owns its citizens.

For a very short and brief period of time in all of human history, a society was instituted on the idea that individuals are severing. That idea exists but is not accepted by any society today. That society limited the state, outlawed direct taxation of individual labor, assumed that unless specifically granted the state didn’t have the power to regulate individual. There were no laws governing what you could eat, smoke, etc. The assumption was the state had no power to tell sovereign people how to live. The state didn’t provide for its citizens, in fact the idea of using tax monies to provide charity to victims of a fire, or other natural disaster was considered unconstitutional (read: “Not Yours To Give”). That very brief experiment in individual sovereignty, is gone.

We are returning to the days of the state, controlled by a few ruling elite, own the masses. Not much different than old feudalism. Look at the uproar over mere citizens not understanding they are owned. The ruling elite are having trouble with the idea that its property, whom they graciously to allow to vote to select leadership, have actually not selected from the approved ruling elite. Eric Cantor’s loss is not an “Earthquake” as some main stream press have headlined. It’s a speed bump in the return to mankind’s historic norms, were a very few ruling elite own and control the masses. Seeing this coming, we note the ruling elite no longer protect and accept the idea that the power is distributed, they willing allow the president to create, change, ignore, and modify law in clear disregard to constitutional limits. They have also accepted and instituted the idea that judges can force legislators to create law. They moved the responsibility and authority from congress to create laws, determine fines, penalties, and fees to unelected bureaucrats. Ownership means control, and the ruling elite have taken control away from elected representatives.

Want proof your owned. There is a disease, ALS commonly called Lou Gehrig’s disease. With rare exception once diagnosed with ALS, you’re dead in 2 to 5 years. There is (was) no known drug that significantly improved this outcome. There is now a new drug in in clinical trials that holds considerable promise. The state has not granted it’s approval. In fact the average time our owners take to approve a new drug its mere property to use is 10 years. You don’t own yourself, if diagnosed with ALS, you do not have the choice to take the chance and try the new drug. This new drug is a risk, the side effects could be bad, or deadly, you might get worse and die sooner if you try this new currently experimental drug. Don’t take it and you will die in an average of 2 to 5 years. The right to take the risk and try this new drug doesn’t exist, your owner, the state, through the FDA determines what risks you can/can’t take just like you determine what food your dog eats, or if your dog gets surgery or is put down because you can’t or don’t want to spend the money. That’s ownership. The state owns you, the state not you, determines if you as an ALS patient can try the new drug. In 10 years the FDA might approve the new drug, over that time 50,000 citizens with ALS will die, without the choice of trying a drug their owner hasn’t decided on. If the owner decides the new drug is too costly, too bad, not your choice, not even the choice between you, your doctor, and your insurance company, your owner determines what medical practices are allowed, what drugs you can take, and what will or won’t be paid for. Proof you are owned, a slave to the state.

Keep voting for the ruling elite, the Republican or Democrat candidates the ruling elite offer you to choose from, each vote for an incumbent or any Republican or any Democrat is a vote to maintain the status quo, state ownership of the citizenry.